WEBVTT

00:01.910 --> 05:38.220
Prof: <<Video
clip>>

05:38.220 --> 05:54.120


05:54.120 --> 05:58.150
Well I think you got the
message.

05:58.149 --> 06:01.299
I was actually going to show
you--this is the end of the

06:01.302 --> 06:01.822
course.

06:01.819 --> 06:04.919
Let me show you-- the beginning
of the course a little video,

06:04.918 --> 06:06.828
but it was not in the right
format.

06:06.829 --> 06:12.429
It shows our favorite dung
beetles copulating.

06:12.430 --> 06:16.640
It's very graphic and it looks
just like humans,

06:16.639 --> 06:20.849
the same rhythm and everything,
same motions.

06:20.850 --> 06:24.240
The message of the course was,
this is what this course has

06:24.242 --> 06:27.872
been about: start with insects
doing their thing and you end up

06:27.870 --> 06:32.660
with humans doing their thing,
and in between nothing really

06:32.661 --> 06:33.891
has changed.

06:33.889 --> 06:38.449
The desire to engage in sex has
not changed, the quest for

06:38.449 --> 06:40.849
status which determines sex.

06:40.850 --> 06:45.190
We've had this over and over
again in the course and I hope

06:45.190 --> 06:49.310
you realize by now that we've
discussed so much from the

06:49.305 --> 06:53.115
Princeton project and other
projects how much social

06:53.122 --> 06:56.942
acceptance is an important part
of fertility.

06:56.940 --> 07:01.100
That people determine their own
fertility a lot because of what

07:01.095 --> 07:03.905
is the acceptable norm in the
community.

07:03.910 --> 07:06.510
Aside from the direct status of
having a lot of sons,

07:06.509 --> 07:11.169
a big family gives you big
status, because of protection

07:11.168 --> 07:15.658
and political power from the
large family and economic

07:15.658 --> 07:16.758
security.

07:16.759 --> 07:19.869
But it's all tied in with
status.

07:19.870 --> 07:23.340
I think I mentioned to you
that, for instance in

07:23.343 --> 07:26.043
Bangladesh,
they looked at fertility as a

07:26.040 --> 07:29.590
function of religiosity and one
factor that had some effect was

07:29.591 --> 07:32.171
the religiosity of the
particular family,

07:32.170 --> 07:34.400
but the much bigger effect was
the religiosity of the

07:34.404 --> 07:34.924
community.

07:34.920 --> 07:37.130
It's all community acceptance.

07:37.129 --> 07:41.459
It's all status and we
just--that comes directly from

07:41.459 --> 07:42.959
the chimpanzees.

07:42.959 --> 07:46.849
Of course you're aware that a
vast percentage of human

07:46.846 --> 07:50.726
consumption, and the richer you
get the greater it is,

07:50.733 --> 07:52.643
is status consumption.

07:52.639 --> 07:57.929
The only difference between a
Mercedes and a Ford is basically

07:57.932 --> 08:00.712
status and that kind of thing.

08:00.709 --> 08:04.789
You've also seen that between
groups, the hostility between

08:04.785 --> 08:08.855
groups has not--basically not
changed since chimpanzees.

08:08.860 --> 08:12.760
The maltreatment of females,
the battering of females among

08:12.757 --> 08:16.117
chimpanzees, the battering of
females among humans,

08:16.117 --> 08:18.467
it's all stayed about the same.

08:18.470 --> 08:23.840
I could have shown you that
video, you would have gotten the

08:23.841 --> 08:27.631
message that--
and also why this is a biology

08:27.629 --> 08:30.489
course,
or at least part of the reason,

08:30.490 --> 08:34.390
is because the fundaments of
almost everything that we've

08:34.392 --> 08:38.852
talked about are the same set of
behavioral propensities that are

08:38.851 --> 08:43.591
apparently wired into us in some
way since our chimpanzee days.

08:43.590 --> 08:48.860
This last--this video that you
did see,

08:48.860 --> 08:52.200
the main point is that the
situation we are in now with

08:52.202 --> 08:56.102
respect to population is totally
unprecedented in the history of

08:56.102 --> 08:59.442
humanity,
there's just never been

08:59.442 --> 09:01.382
anything like it.

09:01.379 --> 09:04.569
You also know something about
the future--

09:04.570 --> 09:33.410


09:33.408 --> 09:35.878
Student:  Professor
Wyman, what year was that video

09:35.884 --> 09:36.194
made?

09:36.190 --> 09:36.950
Prof: What?

09:36.950 --> 09:38.570
Student:  What year was
that video made?

09:38.570 --> 09:40.780
Prof: That video was
made in--

09:40.779 --> 09:44.839
I wrote that down--I think 1990
and the projections--

09:44.840 --> 09:50.310
the actual numbers are pretty
good for their projection.

09:50.308 --> 09:54.428
This is not a new video and
I'll show you the projection.

09:54.429 --> 10:27.429


10:27.428 --> 10:32.068
What's usually--these are the
projections that the UN has put

10:32.070 --> 10:34.700
up for the future of population.

10:34.700 --> 10:39.510
I think I showed you--early in
the course when I was discussing

10:39.508 --> 10:43.908
quantitative methods,
the US Census Bureau projection

10:43.912 --> 10:47.112
and that more or less mimics
this one.

10:47.110 --> 10:49.730
The UN shows you that there's a
range,

10:49.730 --> 10:53.170
they do not know what's going
to happen,

10:53.168 --> 10:56.588
and so they give you a range of
possibilities for the future and

10:56.590 --> 10:58.980
they do not call them
predictions at all,

10:58.980 --> 11:00.600
they are simply projections.

11:00.600 --> 11:04.090
Meaning that if X,
Y, Z, P or Q happens then this

11:04.086 --> 11:08.366
will be the course of population
but they don't say which of

11:08.371 --> 11:14.291
these things is going to happen,
if any of them.

11:14.288 --> 11:19.118
What would you consider in
terms of say fertility?

11:19.120 --> 11:22.420
What would you consider the
most conservative projection?

11:22.418 --> 11:23.748
We know what's happened in the
past,

11:23.750 --> 11:27.160
we know what the status is
today, how should we make our

11:27.158 --> 11:28.458
future projection,

11:28.460 --> 11:31.600


11:31.600 --> 11:33.590
fertility staying the same,
fertility going up,

11:33.590 --> 11:36.080
fertility going down?

11:36.080 --> 11:37.930
Student:  Going down.

11:37.929 --> 11:39.419
Prof: Thinks down, okay.

11:39.418 --> 11:41.328
The UN, that's one of the
projections.

11:41.330 --> 11:44.390
To my mind, the most
conservative projection is that

11:44.389 --> 11:47.989
whatever we're at today that's
where we continue to be at.

11:47.990 --> 11:49.690
In the sense,
that's what I think

11:49.687 --> 11:52.547
conservative means that you
preserve what's been in the

11:52.552 --> 11:53.032
past.

11:53.029 --> 11:58.049
Well that's this projection
that the fertility that the

11:58.054 --> 12:02.154
world is at today continues just
as it is.

12:02.149 --> 12:06.749
The projection that's carried
out to 2050, and assuming that

12:06.751 --> 12:10.581
stays where it is,
it will be--the population will

12:10.575 --> 12:11.975
be 12 billion.

12:11.980 --> 12:14.930
We're now about 6.7 billion.

12:14.928 --> 12:20.818
The population will be not
quite double what we are now,

12:20.815 --> 12:23.485
and rising ever faster.

12:23.490 --> 12:29.330
That's the status quo
assumption.

12:29.330 --> 12:31.910
The other assumptions are
optimistic that things

12:31.912 --> 12:34.002
will--that fertility will come
down.

12:34.000 --> 12:36.660
They're not unreasonable
assumptions and the reason why

12:36.663 --> 12:39.433
some of you chose fertility
coming down because fertility

12:39.426 --> 12:40.656
has been coming down.

12:40.658 --> 12:46.168
It's not a crazy presumption,
but how much is going to come

12:46.173 --> 12:46.843
down?

12:46.840 --> 12:50.600
The UN gives you three
possibilities.

12:50.600 --> 12:54.360
This projection,
which they call the high

12:54.361 --> 12:59.631
projection, assumes that
fertility will come down another

12:59.628 --> 13:01.508
half of a child.

13:01.509 --> 13:06.469
Right now this was based on the
average fertility between 2000

13:06.472 --> 13:09.672
and 2005,
it was about 2.8 children,

13:09.672 --> 13:12.622
2.85 children,
and they're presuming in this

13:12.619 --> 13:16.159
projection that it'll come down
another half a child for every--

13:16.158 --> 13:20.418
the average for everyone on
earth to 2.35,

13:20.418 --> 13:23.688
still above replacement level
fertility.

13:23.690 --> 13:26.520
With that degree of optimism,
fertility comes down another

13:26.524 --> 13:28.794
half a child,
population keeps increasing,

13:28.787 --> 13:32.197
not as fast as this,
and by 2050 we get to roughly

13:32.195 --> 13:36.935
11 billion and it's pretty much
going up in a straight line.

13:36.940 --> 13:41.130
Now you can get a little bit
more optimistic and say,

13:41.125 --> 13:45.145
well it's going to come down a
whole child's worth,

13:45.152 --> 13:47.892
and that's this scenario here.

13:47.889 --> 13:51.869
Now we're at 1.85,
the whole world has come down

13:51.865 --> 13:55.025
to a quarter--
replacement level fertility,

13:55.033 --> 13:57.963
as you know,
is 2.1 children,

13:57.955 --> 14:05.005
so 1.85 is a quarter child
below replacement fertility.

14:05.009 --> 14:08.209
You can decide for yourself how
much optimism is involved in

14:08.206 --> 14:10.046
assuming that's going to happen.

14:10.048 --> 14:15.008
If that's the case,
then population is like nine

14:15.014 --> 14:18.614
billion in 2050,
and continuing up,

14:18.605 --> 14:24.095
but clearly beginning to level
off at that time.

14:24.100 --> 14:31.010
Now they get really optimistic
and they do this line.

14:31.009 --> 14:36.109
And that's-- drops a child and
a half in this short amount of

14:36.105 --> 14:39.415
time and goes down to 1.35
children,

14:39.418 --> 14:44.048
way below replacement
fertility, and that's for the

14:44.052 --> 14:45.352
whole world.

14:45.350 --> 15:15.010
The assumptions are--these are
the UNs own statement of its

15:15.009 --> 15:22.169
assumptions.

15:22.168 --> 15:25.578
The constant fertility one,
fertility remains constant at

15:25.576 --> 15:28.066
an average of more or less 2.8
or 2.85.

15:28.070 --> 15:31.820
The high fertility assumption:
they're calling a reduction

15:31.820 --> 15:34.320
from the fertility to 2.35
children.

15:34.320 --> 15:37.390
Medium: 1.85. 1.35.

15:37.389 --> 15:39.929
And then they have a really
miraculous assumption,

15:39.928 --> 15:41.608
the instant replacement
assumption,

15:41.610 --> 15:44.570
which they don't bother to
graph, which is each country,

15:44.570 --> 15:46.060
immediately,
like tomorrow,

15:46.061 --> 15:49.101
comes down to just the
birthrate that will replace its

15:49.101 --> 15:53.141
population,
no more and no less.

15:53.139 --> 15:57.819
What should we notice about
these things?

15:57.820 --> 16:01.060
Obviously they're pretty
arbitrary assumptions.

16:01.058 --> 16:04.498
No one knows what's going to
happen in the future.

16:04.500 --> 16:08.930
No one claims to know what's
going to happen in the future

16:08.927 --> 16:13.197
and it's a sign that we
don't--we just don't know enough

16:13.197 --> 16:14.827
about this issue.

16:14.830 --> 16:18.550
I mean I've told you a lot
of--the basic stuff that's

16:18.548 --> 16:19.118
known.

16:19.120 --> 16:22.320
We do not know enough to really
predict.

16:22.320 --> 16:24.920
We asked, at the beginning of
the course, the middle and the

16:24.916 --> 16:26.976
end of the course,
why has fertility been coming

16:26.984 --> 16:27.384
down?

16:27.379 --> 16:28.979
What are the determinants of
fertility?

16:28.980 --> 16:31.150
You've gotten a whole lot of
answers.

16:31.149 --> 16:35.259
If we knew the answer for sure
we would be able to predict,

16:35.259 --> 16:38.449
but the future is not terribly
predictable.

16:38.450 --> 16:41.840
These are projections not
predictions.

16:41.840 --> 16:45.480
We've got a huge range there
from about eight billion to

16:45.480 --> 16:48.060
about 12 billion,
that's an uncertainty,

16:48.062 --> 16:51.442
and in the not terribly distant
future, of 50%.

16:51.440 --> 16:58.500
That's a very large degree of
uncertainty.

16:58.500 --> 17:02.520
Only the most optimistic
assumption, this last one,

17:02.524 --> 17:06.474
only the most optimistic
projection has population

17:06.468 --> 17:08.318
decreasing by 2050.

17:08.318 --> 17:13.428
All the other assumptions show
it continuing to increase right

17:13.425 --> 17:18.355
through 2050 with no statement
about what might or might not

17:18.364 --> 17:20.294
happen beyond that.

17:20.288 --> 17:23.748
In the medium variant,
this is the one that they call

17:23.753 --> 17:26.933
the medium variant,
and because they use that word,

17:26.929 --> 17:29.299
'medium' the press sort of
takes this as,

17:29.298 --> 17:31.228
well, the most likely or
something.

17:31.230 --> 17:35.540
The UN does not say anything
about the likelihood of any of

17:35.538 --> 17:38.508
these estimates,
but take your choice.

17:38.509 --> 17:43.469
In this rise that we're now
increasing at,

17:43.465 --> 17:49.625
from 1970-up to 2007 ,
the average rise was about 78

17:49.632 --> 17:51.932
million a year.

17:51.930 --> 17:55.930
In this scenario by 2050
it's--the population is still

17:55.934 --> 18:00.064
increasing by 30 million a year,
so that's their medium variant

18:00.064 --> 18:02.444
as far out as they're willing to
even project,

18:02.440 --> 18:05.460
not predict,
but even to project,

18:05.464 --> 18:10.574
population is still increasing
by 30 million a year.

18:10.568 --> 18:14.098
I keep saying these are
optimistic, remember none of

18:14.098 --> 18:17.558
these assume that fertility
starts rising again.

18:17.558 --> 18:21.128
We have indeed had a fall in
fertility.

18:21.130 --> 18:24.230
And there are certainly reasons
to believe that if the world--

18:24.230 --> 18:28.330
we've had a fall in fertility
and we've also had really rather

18:28.334 --> 18:32.174
great progress in the world,
say since the end of World War

18:32.174 --> 18:32.414
II.

18:32.410 --> 18:34.610
I mean people are staying
alive, they're getting more

18:34.611 --> 18:37.031
educated,
all parts of the world China,

18:37.031 --> 18:39.041
India,
Indonesia, are just

18:39.037 --> 18:42.377
unbelievably richer than they
used to be,

18:42.380 --> 18:46.670
although still very poor and
pockets of real poverty exist.

18:46.670 --> 18:50.650
I mean most of the world has
just improved tremendously,

18:50.646 --> 18:54.986
both in the rich countries in
the West, Japan and in the poor

18:54.987 --> 18:55.997
countries.

18:56.000 --> 19:01.440
If you had to choose a date
that you would like to be alive,

19:01.440 --> 19:04.360
but you couldn't choose who you
would be or where you would be,

19:04.358 --> 19:07.938
the only reasonable date to
choose is now.

19:07.940 --> 19:12.520
Because the average human being
on earth was worse,

19:12.518 --> 19:16.638
worse, worse going back as far
as you want.

19:16.640 --> 19:18.520
Now, if you could choose to be
a rich person,

19:18.519 --> 19:19.759
that's maybe another story.

19:19.759 --> 19:22.669
But if you just would be
randomly set down anywhere,

19:22.673 --> 19:24.333
you would choose to be now.

19:24.328 --> 19:27.658
So things have been getting
better, there's no question

19:27.661 --> 19:28.341
about it.

19:28.338 --> 19:33.328
If things continue to get
better--it's very reasonable to

19:33.333 --> 19:38.553
presume that one of these,
maybe not this curve but one of

19:38.547 --> 19:42.527
these more optimistic curves
might take place.

19:42.529 --> 19:46.569
There are a lot of reasons why
things may not continue to get

19:46.573 --> 19:47.183
better.

19:47.180 --> 19:52.400
In the paper that --segments of
a paper that I wrote,

19:52.400 --> 19:55.010
I list a number of them.

19:55.009 --> 19:57.659
One that I listed there was an
economic collapse,

19:57.660 --> 20:01.810
and I was talking about the
fairly small economic collapse

20:01.814 --> 20:06.264
in Asia in 1997 which had just
happened at about that time.

20:06.259 --> 20:09.279
I did not envision,
as did no one,

20:09.278 --> 20:14.488
we have really now a global
kind of mega-crash and will we

20:14.493 --> 20:17.243
recover or not,
who knows.

20:17.240 --> 20:20.940
If economic progress is one of
the things that's required or

20:20.939 --> 20:24.259
economic increase is one of
things that's required for

20:24.261 --> 20:28.001
population to keep coming down,
then the global economy - who

20:28.003 --> 20:29.543
knows what's going to happen.

20:29.539 --> 20:32.579
It may very well turn around.

20:32.578 --> 20:37.078
Religious fundamentalism is
another thing that we know.

20:37.078 --> 20:40.018
It's not a particular religion
Christianity,

20:40.019 --> 20:44.219
or Islam, or Judaism that
matters, but it is the

20:44.219 --> 20:46.969
religiosity,
the degree to which people are

20:46.974 --> 20:49.434
religious in whatever their
religious tradition is.

20:49.430 --> 20:52.790
That latter makes a difference.

20:52.788 --> 20:57.508
Religious fundamentalism is
basically increasing all across

20:57.513 --> 21:01.753
the world, including the United
States, of course.

21:01.750 --> 21:04.810
I read an article that,
Notre Dame is one of the great

21:04.807 --> 21:07.807
Catholic Universities in America
and the priests,

21:07.808 --> 21:11.068
a number of the priests--of the
order that founded Notre Dame

21:11.065 --> 21:14.615
and still run it,
didn't want--President Obama

21:14.619 --> 21:19.909
was invited to be the speaker at
graduation this year and the

21:19.913 --> 21:25.123
priests didn't want him to be
because he's pro-abortion.

21:25.118 --> 21:31.308
The conservatism in--at one end
of the spectrum of all religions

21:31.306 --> 21:33.856
is there and increasing.

21:33.858 --> 21:37.288
You see the Taliban is at one
end of the Islamic spectrum,

21:37.290 --> 21:41.090
they are powerful--increasingly
powerful not only in Afghanistan

21:41.085 --> 21:42.525
but now in Pakistan.

21:42.529 --> 21:44.279
I don't know if you've been
reading the newspapers,

21:44.279 --> 21:50.749
but they have now taken a
provincial big city or capital,

21:50.750 --> 21:54.910
it was only like 13--30 miles
or something from Islamabad,

21:54.910 --> 21:59.000
the capital of Pakistan so
they're increasing.

21:59.000 --> 22:01.560
The population of Orthodox Jews
in Israel,

22:01.558 --> 22:03.938
because they reproduce so much
faster than everyone else,

22:03.940 --> 22:09.100
is very close to overtaking the
population of more moderate

22:09.096 --> 22:09.716
Jews.

22:09.720 --> 22:14.140
The Palestinians and the
Orthodox Jews in Israel are

22:14.143 --> 22:19.263
having a battle to see who can
increase their fertility fast

22:19.259 --> 22:23.249
enough to sort of out-reproduce
the other.

22:23.250 --> 22:26.990
Another factor is the decline
in support for international

22:26.989 --> 22:28.169
family programs.

22:28.170 --> 22:31.820
As you're undoubtedly aware,
the population explosion which

22:31.819 --> 22:35.219
was a very hot issue for the
press and for all kinds of

22:35.220 --> 22:39.000
activist organizations in the
1960s and 1970s has just fallen

22:38.996 --> 22:40.126
off the map.

22:40.130 --> 22:42.590
Our own school of Environmental
Studies here,

22:42.586 --> 22:43.196
Forestry.

22:43.200 --> 22:46.560
does not have a single person
that pays any attention to human

22:46.563 --> 22:47.283
population.

22:47.279 --> 22:51.489
Courses like this are taught
basically nowhere else,

22:51.489 --> 22:53.799
very few places elsewhere.

22:53.798 --> 22:57.988
Environmental organizations
won't go near the population

22:57.987 --> 23:02.327
issue and so government is not
under any pressure from the

23:02.326 --> 23:06.816
citizens are reducing their
support of family planning.

23:06.818 --> 23:10.038
This has already happened in
large degree,

23:10.038 --> 23:12.948
as well as a lot of other good
programs,

23:12.950 --> 23:18.580
and with the economic problems
of all governments now it's

23:18.583 --> 23:21.453
going to fall even further.

23:21.450 --> 23:24.330
Student:  Don't economic
problems exacerbate social

23:24.327 --> 23:27.657
problems that governments would
want to control their fertility?

23:27.660 --> 23:29.450
Prof: Very good
statement,

23:29.450 --> 23:32.470
so do economic problems
exacerbate social problems so

23:32.472 --> 23:35.732
that people will want to more
control their fertility?

23:35.730 --> 23:37.670
Student:  Or the
government has a much more

23:37.666 --> 23:39.206
vested interest to control
fertility.

23:39.210 --> 23:41.340
Prof: What you say is
reasonable, but the opposite of

23:41.344 --> 23:43.194
everything that we've sort of
said in the course.

23:43.190 --> 23:46.580
When things are getting better,
that when people come from

23:46.575 --> 23:49.085
being--
except for land availability

23:49.093 --> 23:53.063
that--when infant mortality goes
down people reduce their

23:53.058 --> 23:53.978
birthrate.

23:53.980 --> 23:56.850
When education is available
people reduce their birthrate.

23:56.848 --> 23:59.958
When countries get richer
people reduce their birthrate.

23:59.960 --> 24:00.500
So, No.

24:00.499 --> 24:04.729
it's exactly the opposite
of--you should definitely take

24:04.733 --> 24:09.053
that away from this course -
that good things happen when

24:09.046 --> 24:12.046
things are already getting
better.

24:12.048 --> 24:16.558
The reduction in fertility goes
along with, I didn't say caused,

24:16.558 --> 24:20.138
but goes along with an
improvement in every kind of

24:20.137 --> 24:22.497
condition that you can count.

24:22.500 --> 24:29.240
When the economy goes--in the
1997 Asian crisis,

24:29.240 --> 24:31.980
a lot of women working in the
cities and were working at

24:31.982 --> 24:33.782
factories at sewing and so
forth,

24:33.779 --> 24:35.119
not having children.

24:35.118 --> 24:37.398
They lost their jobs,
they went back to the villages

24:37.404 --> 24:38.574
and guess what they did?

24:38.569 --> 24:40.859
They started having children.

24:40.858 --> 24:46.028
It's improvement in a situation
that gets fertility down.

24:46.029 --> 24:47.389
Student:  To go along
with that question,

24:47.390 --> 24:50.610
maybe because it's more of a
short-term economic decline it's

24:50.605 --> 24:53.605
more of a shock and more of a
depression that might cause

24:53.606 --> 24:57.396
people to temporarily reduce--
Prof: Okay excellent,

24:57.400 --> 25:01.260
her question was,
because this is a short term,

25:01.259 --> 25:04.439
more of an economic shock than
a depression,

25:04.440 --> 25:08.140
maybe people will temporarily
reduce their fertility.

25:08.140 --> 25:12.740
That's a wonderful observation.

25:12.740 --> 25:17.360
Economists really don't know
how to answer that.

25:17.358 --> 25:19.398
When I started teaching this
course I taught--

25:19.400 --> 25:24.050
co-taught it with a professor
of Economics and he was teaching

25:24.047 --> 25:26.787
sort of the economic
determinism,

25:26.789 --> 25:28.309
This is really what he believed.

25:28.308 --> 25:30.778
He thought that,
as countries come up

25:30.780 --> 25:33.660
economically,
fertility will come down more

25:33.663 --> 25:35.453
or less automatically.

25:35.450 --> 25:38.370
He was of the mind that
development is the best

25:38.373 --> 25:39.393
contraceptive.

25:39.390 --> 25:42.030
I've shown you--since then the
data has shown,

25:42.025 --> 25:44.945
I think clearly shown,
that's not the case but that

25:44.953 --> 25:46.363
was his belief then.

25:46.358 --> 25:50.968
Then comes this 1997 economic
collapse in Asia and I go up to

25:50.967 --> 25:53.747
this professor,
who I was not teaching with

25:53.750 --> 25:56.780
anymore,
and I say--I say to him 'gee

25:56.780 --> 26:00.370
here's this economic collapse in
Asia,

26:00.369 --> 26:04.319
what do you think will happen?'

26:04.318 --> 26:06.448
He said to me,
'I think fertility will go

26:06.452 --> 26:09.392
down, which is what you're
saying because conditions are

26:09.385 --> 26:11.675
getting worse,' and what you're
saying.

26:11.680 --> 26:14.750
I was shocked and I said,
'but, and I won't tell you his

26:14.749 --> 26:17.989
name, but that's exactly the
opposite of what you taught in

26:17.986 --> 26:18.876
the course.'

26:18.880 --> 26:22.370
What he said to me was,
'I think the theory is flexible

26:22.365 --> 26:26.105
enough to accommodate both
results,' which means the theory

26:26.112 --> 26:27.922
didn't predict anything.

26:27.920 --> 26:30.240
If you can predict this and
then the opposite it doesn't

26:30.238 --> 26:31.038
predict anything.

26:31.038 --> 26:32.678
So we don't know that answer to
this.

26:32.680 --> 26:34.720
I mean, first of all,
we don't know if this is a

26:34.723 --> 26:36.033
temporary economic collapse.

26:36.029 --> 26:40.779
I mean we hope it is,
but no guarantees.

26:40.779 --> 26:44.309
The data to figure out the
difference between what's short

26:44.310 --> 26:47.160
term, which is undefined,
and what's long term,

26:47.161 --> 26:49.951
which is undefined,
very difficult to do;

26:49.950 --> 26:51.910
you may be right you may be
wrong.

26:51.910 --> 26:56.440
I think we just can't be
certain about that.

26:56.440 --> 27:01.590
Of course, the other factor
which could cause things to go

27:01.585 --> 27:06.365
to hell in a hand basket is
environmental collapse.

27:06.368 --> 27:09.778
As the environment gets bad,
if things start getting used

27:09.784 --> 27:12.734
up,
if people really start starving

27:12.734 --> 27:15.474
or lose--
not having water or whatever

27:15.469 --> 27:19.229
the environment will do first,
and we'll talk maybe a little

27:19.233 --> 27:21.163
bit about what might happen
first.

27:21.160 --> 27:24.630
Then, again,
things could go backwards very,

27:24.631 --> 27:25.601
very fast.

27:25.598 --> 27:30.528
None of this is--are
predictions that I'm saying.

27:30.528 --> 27:32.938
I'm just saying that here's all
this optimism,

27:32.940 --> 27:36.590
all of these except the
top--the constant one,

27:36.588 --> 27:39.518
all of those are optimistic
presumptions that may take

27:39.518 --> 27:39.958
place.

27:39.960 --> 27:42.350
But there's just as many
reasons to think that,

27:42.351 --> 27:45.471
no, things will turn around and
fertility will go back up.

27:45.470 --> 27:51.680
We just don't know the future.

27:51.680 --> 27:54.950
We CAN say that,
by almost any kind of

27:54.951 --> 27:59.911
reasonable assumption,
for the next 40 years at least,

27:59.912 --> 28:06.022
we're in for a very significant
increase in population that is

28:06.018 --> 28:07.918
going to happen.

28:07.920 --> 28:11.590
How does one--trying to make
this lecture at least somewhat

28:11.589 --> 28:13.109
about the environment.

28:13.108 --> 28:17.138
How does one relate this
population increase to

28:17.136 --> 28:22.036
environmental destruction to
decay of the environment?

28:22.039 --> 28:24.439
This is not an easy question.

28:24.440 --> 28:29.990
There's so many variables
between human population and

28:29.992 --> 28:36.072
environmental destruction that
it's hard to pick out what's

28:36.070 --> 28:39.320
just due to the population.

28:39.318 --> 28:42.998
The simplest statement that you
can make is that the total human

28:43.000 --> 28:47.100
environmental footprint,
footprint is an idea come up by

28:47.104 --> 28:49.714
I guess some en-- I don't know.

28:49.710 --> 28:52.360
Is there a name attached to who
came up with the use of the word

28:52.364 --> 28:52.874
footprint?

28:52.868 --> 28:56.468
Anyway, the idea of the total
environmental impact of an

28:56.471 --> 28:58.671
individual,
a city, a country,

28:58.666 --> 29:00.366
an industry,
whatever,

29:00.368 --> 29:04.348
the environmental footprint is
what's said.

29:04.348 --> 29:07.558
In the simplest way of thinking
about it, the environmental

29:07.563 --> 29:10.503
footprint is proportionate to
the number of people.

29:10.500 --> 29:13.730
Each of the people on earth
have an average footprint,

29:13.733 --> 29:16.423
the more people,
the bigger the footprint.

29:16.420 --> 29:20.220
And that holds at any level,
any assumptions you want to put

29:20.223 --> 29:20.743
on it.

29:20.740 --> 29:24.150
More people,
bigger footprint,

29:24.152 --> 29:27.332
so that's fairly obvious.

29:27.328 --> 29:29.918
It doesn't tell you an awful
lot and so,

29:29.920 --> 29:33.620
many years ago,
a guy named John Holdren

29:33.616 --> 29:38.736
proposed a sort of expansion of
that idea and he is now

29:38.737 --> 29:41.177
Obama's--
the Director of the Office of

29:41.182 --> 29:43.692
Science and Technology,
just recently appointed by

29:43.686 --> 29:44.636
President Obama.

29:44.640 --> 29:48.270
So, at least now,
you have someone in power who

29:48.268 --> 29:50.318
thinks about population.

29:50.318 --> 29:55.508
What he came up with was this
equation,

29:55.509 --> 29:57.479
the impact, the environmental
impact,

29:57.480 --> 30:00.130
he breaks it down and he says
you don't have to worry only

30:00.131 --> 30:02.551
about population but how rich is
that population,

30:02.548 --> 30:05.088
there's a difference between
rich people and poor people.

30:05.088 --> 30:09.858
What about the technology
involved?

30:09.858 --> 30:13.728
Affluence is that we clearly
know that rich people consume a

30:13.734 --> 30:17.104
lot more than poor people,
between the poorest groups on

30:17.096 --> 30:20.006
earth and the richest there's a
factor of something like 40

30:20.011 --> 30:23.031
depending on how poor you want
to go and how rich you want to

30:23.027 --> 30:23.427
go.

30:23.430 --> 30:27.290
That number can be almost
anything, but 40 is a reasonable

30:27.289 --> 30:30.539
number to keep in mind,
so affluence is certainly

30:30.540 --> 30:31.490
important.

30:31.490 --> 30:34.120
The amount of money your
population has.

30:34.118 --> 30:38.308
And technology,
so nowadays if we want to knock

30:38.307 --> 30:42.767
down a forest we use bulldozers
and chainsaws,

30:42.769 --> 30:46.619
chainsaws that will cut down a
40 foot tree with one swipe.

30:46.618 --> 30:49.718
Clearly that technology allows
you to have a much greater

30:49.718 --> 30:52.758
impact than if you're going out
there with a little hand

30:52.759 --> 30:56.009
hatchet,
or maybe even a stone ax to try

30:56.005 --> 30:57.955
to chop down your tree.

30:57.960 --> 31:03.030
The amount of technology that
one has clearly makes a

31:03.028 --> 31:08.778
tremendous difference on how
much destruction you can do.

31:08.778 --> 31:13.358
What you should notice is that
like all--so this is symbolized

31:13.358 --> 31:16.658
by IPAT, the impact is
population, affluence,

31:16.662 --> 31:19.592
technology all multiplied
together.

31:19.588 --> 31:22.568
You should keep in mind that
this is a tautology.

31:22.568 --> 31:24.318
Tautology means something which
is always true,

31:24.318 --> 31:27.278
the equation is always true,
and you just see that from--

31:27.278 --> 31:31.318
you define population just
people, affluence is the income

31:31.317 --> 31:33.817
per person,
the number of dollars that

31:33.816 --> 31:36.666
person has,
and technology is defined in

31:36.665 --> 31:40.105
this nice way of the impact per
dollar spent.

31:40.108 --> 31:43.528
That's the--how you're defining
these terms,

31:43.529 --> 31:47.109
how you're measuring these
terms, and you'll just notice

31:47.114 --> 31:51.354
that if you cross multiply the
persons and persons cancel out,

31:51.348 --> 31:53.338
the dollars and dollars cancel
out,

31:53.338 --> 31:57.208
so your equation ends up that
the impact is equal to the

31:57.207 --> 31:57.837
impact.

31:57.838 --> 32:01.938
That's the sign of a true
equation, true of hitting

32:01.938 --> 32:05.708
all--it's a tautology,
it's always the case.

32:05.710 --> 32:07.800
I should show you that,
for instance,

32:07.801 --> 32:11.001
this is a standard thing out of
Science magazine,

32:10.998 --> 32:13.438
one of their stories about
population.

32:13.440 --> 32:16.800
What are they doing:
impact, here's the first thing,

32:16.801 --> 32:18.781
they list impact per dollar.

32:18.778 --> 32:20.718
In this case,
the impact they're interested

32:20.724 --> 32:21.424
in is carbon.

32:21.420 --> 32:23.710
So, they're talking about the
carbon budget,

32:23.710 --> 32:28.210
they even use the word budget
for that and it's for each US

32:28.214 --> 32:30.394
dollar.--
This is a global figure they're

32:30.388 --> 32:32.618
going to give,
you but they're calculating it

32:32.615 --> 32:33.385
in US dollars.

32:33.390 --> 32:38.080
For each dollar spent on
something in the world how much

32:38.079 --> 32:39.529
carbon is used?

32:39.529 --> 32:44.529
So that's kilograms of carbon
per dollar and it's about now

32:44.525 --> 32:49.515
about a quarter and it's changed
somewhat over time but not

32:49.520 --> 32:52.380
enormously,
so it's gotten better.

32:52.380 --> 32:56.710
This is--the lower the number
the better that for each dollar

32:56.712 --> 33:00.902
of stuff that you buy there's
basically less carbon used to

33:00.903 --> 33:01.773
make it.

33:01.769 --> 33:07.819
This kind of way of thinking
about environmental impacts is

33:07.817 --> 33:14.487
now actually rather standard and
you really can't avoid this kind

33:14.490 --> 33:16.160
of thinking.

33:16.160 --> 33:19.220
One of the real important
things about this,

33:19.221 --> 33:22.141
that people make mistakes on
all the time,

33:22.140 --> 33:24.490
is that the factors multiply.

33:24.490 --> 33:28.290
That you don't add the
population plus the affluence,

33:28.291 --> 33:31.291
plus the technology,
you multiply them.

33:31.288 --> 33:34.258
One of the--there's a very
important book,

33:34.259 --> 33:36.769
I think it's called
Something New Under The

33:36.767 --> 33:39.697
Sun,
and the guy who wrote it,

33:39.701 --> 33:44.811
Yale tried to hire him as our
environmental historian.

33:44.808 --> 33:49.188
He was adding these factors and
making all kinds of totally

33:49.192 --> 33:51.552
wrong conclusions,
saying that,

33:51.546 --> 33:54.996
well the rate of growth of
affluence is so much and the

33:54.998 --> 33:57.808
rate of growth of population is
so much,

33:57.808 --> 33:59.438
so this one is more important
than that one;

33:59.440 --> 34:03.130
just saying utter nonsense
because he didn't realize the

34:03.130 --> 34:06.790
importance of the fact that--
anything per capita is

34:06.788 --> 34:10.518
multiplied by the total
population to get your global

34:10.521 --> 34:11.241
impact.

34:11.239 --> 34:13.989
The global impact is something,
you're interested in the total

34:13.989 --> 34:15.419
impact,
the total amount of carbon

34:15.422 --> 34:17.072
dioxide,
you're not interested so much

34:17.072 --> 34:19.752
in how much carbon dioxide I put
into the air but how much the

34:19.748 --> 34:22.358
six,
seven billion of us put into

34:22.355 --> 34:23.075
the air.

34:23.079 --> 34:26.899


34:26.900 --> 34:29.750
Now the equation looks simple
and it's always true,

34:29.750 --> 34:35.250
and yet it's not as
straightforward as one would

34:35.253 --> 34:38.113
like,
because people take something

34:38.112 --> 34:41.232
beyond the tautological fact of
it being true.

34:41.230 --> 34:44.530
What this--as I've described
it, what this makes you think

34:44.532 --> 34:46.692
is,
well, an increase in population

34:46.686 --> 34:49.296
is always bad,
it always increases the impact,

34:49.298 --> 34:51.518
an increase of affluence is
always bad,

34:51.518 --> 34:54.958
it always increases the impact,
and improvement in technology

34:54.956 --> 34:57.686
is always bad,
it increases the impact.

34:57.690 --> 35:00.770
That's not true.

35:00.768 --> 35:03.948
As people get richer,
as affluence goes up,

35:03.945 --> 35:08.475
they tend to spend a somewhat
larger fraction of their income

35:08.481 --> 35:10.601
on environmental issues.

35:10.599 --> 35:13.499
That once you have a nice house
and a nice car,

35:13.500 --> 35:15.540
and nice school,
and nice clothing you may

35:15.543 --> 35:17.393
actually want to breathe nice
air,

35:17.389 --> 35:20.709
and look at something green and
have a park to go walk into.

35:20.710 --> 35:25.380
So rich people do indeed spend
more than poor people on

35:25.380 --> 35:29.880
environmental issues,
so affluence can work both ways

35:29.876 --> 35:33.506
and that's very important to
remember.

35:33.510 --> 35:36.660
However you have to step back a
little bit and say,

35:36.659 --> 35:42.099
well in the world what fraction
of our increasing affluence have

35:42.101 --> 35:45.471
we actually spent on the
environment?

35:45.469 --> 35:48.559
We have spent a very small
fraction of it,

35:48.559 --> 35:52.049
so in fact, the overwhelming,
dominant effect of our

35:52.054 --> 35:55.894
affluence has indeed been to
have a greater impact on the

35:55.891 --> 35:59.731
environment and we've
ameliorated that a little bit.

35:59.730 --> 36:02.220
I mean very noticeable,
the rivers in America,

36:02.219 --> 36:04.839
we are a rich place,
rivers are really--

36:04.840 --> 36:06.300
a lot of rivers have been
cleaned up,

36:06.300 --> 36:10.620
a lot of smog has been cleaned
up, so we have made progress in

36:10.623 --> 36:12.613
certain very visible ways.

36:12.610 --> 36:15.820
We've exported a fair amount of
our environmental concerns to

36:15.824 --> 36:18.834
other parts of the world by
having them manufacture stuff

36:18.826 --> 36:22.056
and bringing it in here,
and knocking down their forests

36:22.061 --> 36:25.501
to bring in wood and so forth,
and the Chinese and the

36:25.503 --> 36:29.063
Japanese have done just the same
kind of thing.

36:29.059 --> 36:34.219
Similarly, with technology,
it doesn't always work one way.

36:34.219 --> 36:38.739
Yes, technology allows you to
blow off a mountain top to get

36:38.739 --> 36:39.659
some coal.

36:39.659 --> 36:43.299
You've seen these horrific
pictures of West Virginia and so

36:43.297 --> 36:46.487
forth where a more or less
beautiful mountain that's

36:46.494 --> 36:50.054
covered in trees is just gone,
and all that mountain top

36:50.047 --> 36:53.357
becomes slag and pollutes rivers
and acidifies rivers and does

36:53.362 --> 36:56.062
horrible things,
and you have this ugly,

36:56.059 --> 37:00.449
scarred-up land,
so technology does that.

37:00.449 --> 37:02.219
But also improvement of
technology.

37:02.219 --> 37:03.979
Begins with the mining of
copper;

37:03.980 --> 37:08.770
when you replace copper wires
with fiber optics,

37:08.768 --> 37:12.168
they're made of glass and glass
is made from sand and the

37:12.168 --> 37:15.688
harvesting of sand doesn't do an
awful lot of environmental

37:15.688 --> 37:16.658
destruction.

37:16.659 --> 37:23.229
So, that's an improvement in
the environment and there's a

37:23.228 --> 37:26.568
number of examples of that.

37:26.570 --> 37:30.830
Again you have to ask--cars
are--our current push now to

37:30.833 --> 37:33.163
make cars that use less gas.

37:33.159 --> 37:37.819
So the good that it does use,
it gets you how many--to drive

37:37.822 --> 37:41.302
a mile you use less gas,
not enormously less,

37:41.300 --> 37:43.040
but somewhat less.

37:43.039 --> 37:46.569
Technology can help you,
and again the standard question

37:46.565 --> 37:48.425
is,
has our improvement in

37:48.429 --> 37:51.359
technology over the last 20,
30,40, 50 years,

37:51.356 --> 37:53.906
whatever time window you want
to deal with,

37:53.909 --> 37:57.839
has this allowed us to do more
environmental destruction of the

37:57.840 --> 38:01.770
earth or have we used enough--
a big enough fraction of it to

38:01.768 --> 38:03.348
improve the environment.

38:03.349 --> 38:08.049
Our efficiency of use of the
environment, that the things

38:08.045 --> 38:12.735
have gotten better and the
answer is: there's no question

38:12.739 --> 38:14.919
about what's happened.

38:14.920 --> 38:16.630
You see in this,
again this is more

38:16.625 --> 38:20.005
CO_2 stuff,
that here is the sources of

38:20.014 --> 38:23.174
CO_2 addition into the
air,

38:23.170 --> 38:26.850
which is a very good index of
what's happening in the total

38:26.853 --> 38:27.493
economy.

38:27.489 --> 38:33.919
What you see is the land use,
so land adds into the

38:33.918 --> 38:41.118
CO_2 by--where
deforestation and using wood for

38:41.117 --> 38:44.457
timber and everything.

38:44.460 --> 38:48.290
The amount--the land use,
the changes in land use has not

38:48.291 --> 38:49.731
enormously changed.

38:49.730 --> 38:53.730
The width of that line is more
or less the same over time,

38:53.730 --> 38:57.480
so the change in land use is
putting about the same amount of

38:57.480 --> 38:59.480
carbon into the air as before.

38:59.480 --> 39:02.910
There's a little bit of other
emissions which we don't have to

39:02.905 --> 39:06.045
worry about, but fossil fuel
combustion has just gone up,

39:06.052 --> 39:07.122
up, up, and up.

39:07.119 --> 39:10.159
Whatever the balance of our
affluence and our technology,

39:10.159 --> 39:13.989
whatever the balance,
well we can see that is the

39:13.994 --> 39:19.114
balance of our use between using
it to ameliorate the environment

39:19.108 --> 39:23.258
versus messing up the
environment and we'll come back

39:23.262 --> 39:26.462
to this slide if we have a
chance.

39:26.460 --> 39:33.340


39:33.340 --> 39:38.160
The--in terms of the
efficiency, that first factor,

39:38.164 --> 39:43.184
not the first factor,
the dollars per carbon use that

39:43.181 --> 39:44.341
is here.

39:44.340 --> 39:49.000
Actually the carbon use per
dollar is quite interesting;

39:49.000 --> 39:50.870
it has been coming down.

39:50.869 --> 39:55.319
From 1970 it was about a third
of a kilogram of carbon per

39:55.324 --> 40:00.094
dollar and that's come down to
now something like a quarter of

40:00.090 --> 40:03.870
a kilogram per dollar spent,
and that's just carbon,

40:03.869 --> 40:06.999
so you multiply that by almost
four if you want to measure in

40:07.001 --> 40:09.981
CO_2 because carbon is
about one quarter of each

40:09.976 --> 40:11.486
CO_2 molecule.

40:11.489 --> 40:18.529
It's basically--we know for
each dollar spent we put out two

40:18.534 --> 40:20.844
pounds,
a kilogram of carbon,

40:20.844 --> 40:23.874
so every time you go and buy
something just give them a $1

40:23.871 --> 40:26.901
and say that's two pounds of
carbon I'm putting into--

40:26.900 --> 40:29.400
of carbon dioxide I'm putting
into the atmosphere.

40:29.400 --> 40:34.900
It's a not crazy way of
thinking about things.

40:34.900 --> 40:37.990
What is worrying people now is
that this has been a pretty good

40:37.990 --> 40:40.000
decline,
but actually this is now

40:39.998 --> 40:43.398
turning out to be more
significant than people thought.

40:43.400 --> 40:47.830
The rate of decline here,
that's decline in efficiency of

40:47.831 --> 40:50.921
use of carbon,
was about 1.3% a year.

40:50.920 --> 40:54.700
It's no longer declining and
this seems to have continued.

40:54.699 --> 41:00.059
It's now going up by 0.3%,
3/10ths of a percent a year,

41:00.059 --> 41:03.959
so it looks like the--that
we've picked the easy apples,

41:03.960 --> 41:08.540
the low hanging fruit as they
say, in improving our carbon

41:08.541 --> 41:12.641
efficiency and now we may be
getting worse again.

41:12.639 --> 41:16.319


41:16.320 --> 41:22.860
All of that is about how to
think--

41:22.860 --> 41:27.380
now one of the ways of putting
in a quantitative view of the

41:27.380 --> 41:32.210
relationship between population
and the environmental impact.

41:32.210 --> 41:36.910


41:36.909 --> 41:39.089
There are many,
many other considerations with

41:39.092 --> 41:41.472
the relationship between
population and impact.

41:41.469 --> 41:47.089
One is the expansion of humans
into almost every habitat on

41:47.085 --> 41:47.855
earth.

41:47.860 --> 41:53.110
There's almost no limit to this
so I'll show you some

41:53.105 --> 41:57.035
limiting--some extreme cases of
this.

41:57.039 --> 41:58.359
What's going on?

41:58.360 --> 42:00.450
It's something that Malthus
talked about.

42:00.449 --> 42:03.919
Remember we described what
Malthus said,

42:03.918 --> 42:08.898
he's living in England just
about 1800 and the population

42:08.900 --> 42:10.590
was increasing.

42:10.590 --> 42:12.680
What did they do?

42:12.679 --> 42:14.899
There was farmland,
the best farmland was already

42:14.896 --> 42:17.696
farmed,
but as there were more farmers,

42:17.702 --> 42:21.482
the farmers had to move onto
more marginal land,

42:21.480 --> 42:23.790
less good land.

42:23.789 --> 42:27.589
What he was thinking was that
if there's a law of diminishing

42:27.592 --> 42:30.202
returns,
that you have farmers on good

42:30.199 --> 42:31.999
land,
they're producing so much per

42:32.000 --> 42:33.340
farmer and it's fairly good.

42:33.340 --> 42:36.060
England was not a very poor
place.

42:36.059 --> 42:39.469
As population increases they
have to move onto drier land,

42:39.469 --> 42:42.319
swampier land,
hillier land,

42:42.318 --> 42:46.968
and the production per farmer,
for these new farmers,

42:46.967 --> 42:49.247
is less than those that had the
best land.

42:49.250 --> 42:52.930
While the total production
grows, and remember Malthus

42:52.931 --> 42:55.991
showed a linear rise in total
production,

42:55.989 --> 43:00.099
that with new people total
production grows but population

43:00.101 --> 43:01.761
is growing like this.

43:01.760 --> 43:05.790
Since each new person produces
less than an old person,

43:05.786 --> 43:09.736
he has to farm on worse land
than the earlier farmers,

43:09.740 --> 43:12.650
the average productivity goes
down.

43:12.650 --> 43:15.700
That is a thing that has
happened all through history.

43:15.699 --> 43:18.969
Of course humans when they have
a choice of land,

43:18.969 --> 43:22.509
when they're not crowded,
when nobody else is standing

43:22.507 --> 43:24.907
around they choose the best
land,

43:24.909 --> 43:30.629
the easiest to get along with,
to survive in.

43:30.630 --> 43:38.500
Then what happens is people
move out into less good land.

43:38.500 --> 43:43.610
The pictures I'm going to show
you are from Niger which is in

43:43.612 --> 43:45.822
Sahel,
just south of the Sahara

43:45.822 --> 43:49.132
Desert, it actually sticks up
into the Sahara Desert,

43:49.130 --> 43:55.650
and this is a province of Niger
called Azawakh.

43:55.650 --> 43:58.440
It's a huge province because
there's not many people there,

43:58.443 --> 44:00.903
it's a big thing right on the
edge of the Sahara.

44:00.900 --> 44:04.430
The population is 50,000 people.

44:04.429 --> 44:10.389
In the dry season they have two
wells in the whole--

44:10.389 --> 44:12.689
for that whole huge territory,
for that whole--

44:12.690 --> 44:16.300
for all those 50,000 people
there are only two wells and

44:16.295 --> 44:18.585
only one of them works
regularly.

44:18.590 --> 44:22.320
During the rainy season and
this is what it looks like in

44:22.320 --> 44:23.320
that country.

44:23.320 --> 44:27.360
They have, you can see,
there's no water,

44:27.360 --> 44:30.580
nothing growing in the ground,
some of the trees that can

44:30.577 --> 44:32.787
survive,
grass doesn't survive this,

44:32.793 --> 44:35.493
it's too small and it loses
water, it's gone.

44:35.489 --> 44:40.809
Trees can store water basically
and survive fairly long periods

44:40.809 --> 44:45.699
of drought, so you get some
what's called scrub forest.

44:45.699 --> 44:48.489
In the wet season they're very
joyous,

44:48.489 --> 44:53.469
they have lots of water,
they drink lots of water,

44:53.469 --> 44:57.459
but this is the amount of water
that they have and the people

44:57.456 --> 44:59.646
use it for all their functions.

44:59.650 --> 45:01.420
The animals,
I don't know if you can see an

45:01.418 --> 45:05.158
animal back here,
the animals use it to drink and

45:05.155 --> 45:10.665
relieve themselves and here's
girls washing in this water.

45:10.670 --> 45:14.490
This is in the good time of the
year;

45:14.489 --> 45:19.109
this is the water that they
have to survive on.

45:19.110 --> 45:21.550
The dry season is nine months
long.

45:21.550 --> 45:25.660
You have some rain,
not a lot, but some rain for

45:25.663 --> 45:29.163
three months,
then the dry season is nine

45:29.163 --> 45:34.593
months long, and then this is
the labor value of children.

45:34.590 --> 45:38.880
These young girls must travel
35 miles to one of the two wells

45:38.876 --> 45:42.036
that are available and that's
the average,

45:42.039 --> 45:44.899
depending on where they live,
that they have to walk--

45:44.900 --> 45:48.970
no mechanized transport,
they walk 35 miles and they can

45:48.969 --> 45:53.339
carry back only enough water so
their families can drink one

45:53.335 --> 45:54.515
glass a day.

45:54.518 --> 45:57.638
Remember we used to be told,
it's now shown not to be not

45:57.643 --> 46:00.213
really scientific,
drink eight glasses of water

46:00.208 --> 46:04.928
every day;
they're living on one-eighth of

46:04.925 --> 46:07.715
that amount of water.

46:07.719 --> 46:10.879
You have to ask yourselves,
why do people live in such a

46:10.882 --> 46:12.092
God forsaken place?

46:12.090 --> 46:16.700
This life is so hard and so
miserable, and what is the

46:16.697 --> 46:17.477
answer?

46:17.480 --> 46:20.810
The better places have somebody
on them already.

46:20.809 --> 46:25.259
The story, if you can do the
sort of anthropological history,

46:25.259 --> 46:29.779
is virtually always that this
tribe at one point lived in some

46:29.782 --> 46:31.342
much nicer place.

46:31.340 --> 46:34.630
Some tribe got more populous,
got stronger in one way or

46:34.626 --> 46:38.326
another was more vicious,
and they got pushed out of what

46:38.331 --> 46:43.361
was their original,
aboriginal fairly decent land

46:43.360 --> 46:46.510
onto more marginal land.

46:46.510 --> 46:50.950
While they may have been living
now for hundreds of years,

46:50.954 --> 46:55.164
in a sense, it's not their own
choice to live on such a

46:55.164 --> 46:57.664
miserable part of the world.

46:57.659 --> 47:01.139
When you read I think in
the--The War Before

47:01.143 --> 47:03.983
Civilization,
I gave you some readings in

47:03.976 --> 47:06.216
this book which calculated all
the violence,

47:06.219 --> 47:10.639
it describes some people that
had been pushed out into these

47:10.637 --> 47:13.407
marginal lands by stronger
people,

47:13.409 --> 47:15.899
so it gives you a number of
examples of that.

47:15.900 --> 47:20.050
Of course the big example,
the big modern example is in

47:20.045 --> 47:22.845
America,
that the European settlers

47:22.853 --> 47:27.263
pushed the American Indians,
the Native Americans into

47:27.260 --> 47:28.630
horrible lands.

47:28.630 --> 47:32.130
The stories of pushing the
Cherokees from nice farmland and

47:32.132 --> 47:35.642
nice productive land in say
North Carolina and putting them

47:35.635 --> 47:37.925
into Oklahoma which was half
dry,

47:37.929 --> 47:42.979
or the Apaches and various
Indians pushed them off into the

47:42.976 --> 47:43.756
desert.

47:43.760 --> 47:46.950
You go see how miserably a lot
of the American Indians now live

47:46.947 --> 47:49.157
in the Navajo reservations and
so forth,

47:49.159 --> 47:51.879
and say, my God,
why do they want to live there?

47:51.880 --> 47:53.330
They don't.

47:53.329 --> 47:58.999
They didn't want to live there,
they weren't given a choice,

47:58.996 --> 48:01.586
and they were pushed out.

48:01.590 --> 48:05.160
We're talking about dryness
which is one of the things that

48:05.161 --> 48:08.731
people just absolutely can't
exist without water so this is

48:08.733 --> 48:10.893
really the border of existence.

48:10.889 --> 48:14.419
But, where it's very wet--you
remember you read in Bangladesh

48:14.416 --> 48:17.766
that people living on the mud
flats and the monsoon season

48:17.766 --> 48:20.036
comes in,
the water rises or a flood

48:20.036 --> 48:22.036
comes, and they're just washed
out.

48:22.039 --> 48:26.139
Those people didn't choose to
live there, there's no land

48:26.143 --> 48:29.223
anywhere else,
and so they do whatever they

48:29.222 --> 48:29.812
can.

48:29.809 --> 48:32.589
The Eskimos that live up on the
polar ice cap,

48:32.590 --> 48:34.880
there are some Eskimos that are
constantly--

48:34.880 --> 48:42.230
apparently constantly on the
ice cap and don't have a base on

48:42.231 --> 48:43.091
land.

48:43.090 --> 48:47.070
When we think of people living
in these very marginal

48:47.067 --> 48:50.197
circumstances,
one attributes them then to

48:50.202 --> 48:52.862
these famines;
people who live in this region

48:52.860 --> 48:54.100
have famines every so often.

48:54.099 --> 48:56.329
There's great drought,
as you know,

48:56.331 --> 48:57.121
right now.

48:57.119 --> 48:59.739
Parts of Africa have terrible
drought.

48:59.739 --> 49:03.909
California has a terrible
drought, the Colorado River

49:03.905 --> 49:05.985
Basin is having drought.

49:05.989 --> 49:10.179
So, when this happens,
it's always when--

49:10.179 --> 49:13.139
the people get into great
trouble and they can easily

49:13.137 --> 49:16.037
starve to death and some
advanced countries may,

49:16.039 --> 49:18.829
or may not, send them food,
and sending them food has its

49:18.831 --> 49:19.581
own problems.

49:19.579 --> 49:22.749


49:22.750 --> 49:26.440
It's always attributed to
environmental variability,

49:26.443 --> 49:28.113
to climatic troubles.

49:28.110 --> 49:31.950
No one ever asks the question,
why have these people been

49:31.949 --> 49:35.379
pushed into this incredibly
inhospitable region?

49:35.380 --> 49:38.600
I mean part of the ecology of
that region is you're going to

49:38.599 --> 49:42.039
have droughts every so often and
sometimes they're going to last

49:42.038 --> 49:43.838
for years and be very severe.

49:43.840 --> 49:46.290
In California,
the drought in California has

49:46.289 --> 49:47.599
now lasted for years.

49:47.599 --> 49:55.669


49:55.670 --> 49:57.610
Everything in the environment,
the relationship between the

49:57.606 --> 49:59.006
population and environments is
circular.

49:59.010 --> 50:03.750
That people affect the
environment and the environment

50:03.753 --> 50:08.323
comes and bites them back,
it comes back to them.

50:08.320 --> 50:13.330
Water is one of the key things
and probably what will give out

50:13.327 --> 50:17.757
first when we really reach the
environmental limit,

50:17.760 --> 50:21.140
it will almost certainly be
fresh water.

50:21.139 --> 50:24.819
There is a lot of information
that you can get on this very

50:24.822 --> 50:26.922
easily, it's not secret at all.

50:26.920 --> 50:30.950
There are two sources of water
that humans can use,

50:30.947 --> 50:32.797
which is fresh water.

50:32.800 --> 50:36.760
You can desalinate salt water
but the energy costs are

50:36.764 --> 50:40.054
enormous so it's not--
unless you're an Arab and

50:40.054 --> 50:43.104
sitting on an oil well you
really can't do it in any

50:43.103 --> 50:44.183
reasonable way.

50:44.179 --> 50:47.799
There's renewable water,
which is rain water.

50:47.800 --> 50:49.350
When it rains,
that is renewable.

50:49.349 --> 50:52.219
There's this cycle of it goes
up into the atmosphere and comes

50:52.219 --> 50:53.159
back down as rain.

50:53.159 --> 50:56.779
So you have renewable water
coming eventually into rivers

50:56.775 --> 50:59.805
and in one way or another you
tap the rivers.

50:59.809 --> 51:03.329
Then there's mined water,
when you mine it just like you

51:03.331 --> 51:06.661
mine coal, you dig down and you
suck up the water.

51:06.659 --> 51:09.719


51:09.719 --> 51:14.319
The greatest productivity of a
lot of the farm regions of the

51:14.322 --> 51:16.702
world comes from mined water.

51:16.699 --> 51:21.459
So--the Midwest of the U.S.,
especially as you get further

51:21.458 --> 51:26.388
west in it, does not have enough
rainfall, so they use mined

51:26.385 --> 51:27.215
water.

51:27.219 --> 51:30.759
You probably have heard that
the reason they can use mined

51:30.764 --> 51:34.434
water is that underlying on our
Midwest is what's called the

51:34.434 --> 51:35.744
Ogallala aquifer.

51:35.739 --> 51:39.019
Ogallala is the name of one of
the Indian groups that used to

51:39.016 --> 51:40.926
live there, the Ogallala
aquifer.

51:40.929 --> 51:47.179
The farmers all over the west
there just sink down a tube and

51:47.184 --> 51:49.274
suck up the water.

51:49.268 --> 51:54.138
Well you have to think
of--being a scientist you always

51:54.135 --> 51:58.285
want to know how why,
where, all this kind of stuff,

51:58.291 --> 52:01.481
and since a kid you read about
Artesian wells,

52:01.480 --> 52:03.250
and wells to underground water.

52:03.250 --> 52:06.500
Then, eventually,
you ask yourself,

52:06.498 --> 52:09.458
how does water get into rock?

52:09.460 --> 52:12.830
The reason is it drips in there.

52:12.829 --> 52:17.039
The Ogallala aquifer actually
filled from the melt-off of the

52:17.038 --> 52:18.088
last ice age.

52:18.090 --> 52:21.550
Apparently the peak of the last
ice age was about 18,000 years

52:21.545 --> 52:24.995
ago and then it took about 8,000
years to melt until something

52:25.000 --> 52:28.160
like 10,000 years ago,
those are very approximate

52:28.155 --> 52:28.715
numbers.

52:28.719 --> 52:32.739
For 8,000 years ice was
melting, the ground was soggy,

52:32.735 --> 52:34.475
and drip, drip,
drip.

52:34.480 --> 52:37.820
Rock is never totally solid,
there's always somewhere,

52:37.818 --> 52:41.718
some little crack and the water
slowly drips through the cracks

52:41.722 --> 52:42.922
and goes in it.

52:42.920 --> 52:48.110
Any kind of--When the rocks get
folded, there's caverns in there

52:48.110 --> 52:53.220
and any kind of space eventually
water will find its way in.

52:53.219 --> 52:56.319
If you ever paid attention to
the roof on your house,

52:56.320 --> 52:59.480
you know that water gets in,
no matter what you do.

52:59.480 --> 53:04.030
It's the filling of these
aquifers.

53:04.030 --> 53:06.610
I don't know--I can't remember
when that ice age started,

53:06.610 --> 53:09.270
but something that took 8,000
years to fill,

53:09.268 --> 53:12.218
but that depended on a glacier
which was there for the previous

53:12.217 --> 53:12.927
10,000 years.

53:12.929 --> 53:16.889
So, we're talking about a
resource that is one of the

53:16.891 --> 53:21.231
shorter term resources and it's
something like it fills in

53:21.233 --> 53:22.533
20,000 years.

53:22.530 --> 53:30.650
Now we're sucking it up in
decades and it's very much going

53:30.650 --> 53:32.190
way down.

53:32.190 --> 53:34.060
There were some slides,
and the reason I was a little

53:34.061 --> 53:35.451
late,
I could not find the slides

53:35.449 --> 53:37.209
this morning,
I had them yesterday and I

53:37.213 --> 53:40.823
don't know where they went,
so I didn't put them on but

53:40.822 --> 53:44.782
they showed some interesting
kinds of things.

53:44.780 --> 53:48.350
That when you're sitting on top
of this aquifer you've got the

53:48.346 --> 53:51.146
rock and the water,
water is incompressible so it

53:51.152 --> 53:52.442
holds up the rock.

53:52.440 --> 53:55.090
You suck out the water there's
now a space there,

53:55.090 --> 53:57.630
and what happens,
the rock starts crumbling and

53:57.630 --> 53:58.570
falling down.

53:58.570 --> 54:02.060
What happens is the land
actually falls.

54:02.059 --> 54:05.139
In the pictures that I could
not find,

54:05.139 --> 54:10.229
show first from Houston,
Texas a farm there and it's--

54:10.230 --> 54:12.970
shows you a pump,
it's just a concrete platform

54:12.967 --> 54:16.327
with a pump,
and you know where the land was

54:16.327 --> 54:20.147
and then the land is several
feet beneath that.

54:20.150 --> 54:23.950
The land is just shrunken,
has collapsed.

54:23.949 --> 54:27.059
And the second picture I want
to show is in Galveston,

54:27.059 --> 54:31.319
Texas not so far from Houston,
now the land has fallen,

54:31.320 --> 54:35.030
again all due to irrigation,
but they're near the sea so the

54:35.032 --> 54:38.182
salt water has come in and now
what used to be good

54:38.179 --> 54:42.019
agricultural land is now flooded
with the Gulf of Mexico.

54:42.019 --> 54:44.389
Are you from that region?

54:44.389 --> 54:47.139
She was shaking her head,
as maybe she knows.

54:47.139 --> 54:53.139
The most impressive picture
comes from the San Joaquin

54:53.137 --> 54:55.737
Valley of California.

54:55.739 --> 54:58.339
Now, you know probably--That's
where all our fruits and

54:58.342 --> 55:00.462
vegetables come from,
that's a huge source of

55:00.463 --> 55:01.673
American food supply.

55:01.670 --> 55:04.490
Probably almost all of you
today have already today eaten

55:04.490 --> 55:06.860
something that was farmed in the
San Joaquin.

55:06.860 --> 55:09.880
Anybody from that part?

55:09.880 --> 55:13.930
Nobody from--we don't have
enough farmers at Yale.

55:13.929 --> 55:17.709
Well this is a picture of a
pole that they put in to measure

55:17.713 --> 55:19.193
the drop of the land.

55:19.190 --> 55:22.100
What you see is this very large
pole and a man,

55:22.099 --> 55:24.059
the man is sort of down here.

55:24.059 --> 55:28.069
What the pole is,
is the top of the pole is where

55:28.070 --> 55:32.030
the land was in--
I can't remember like 1957 or

55:32.030 --> 55:37.260
something like that and the land
has dropped 30 feet in that time

55:37.264 --> 55:41.684
and the man is now 5.5 foot man
or a six foot man,

55:41.679 --> 55:44.749
is a small fraction of this
pole.

55:44.750 --> 55:47.590
It's really a shocking kind of
photo, and of course the

55:47.590 --> 55:50.640
agricultural activity in the
valleys of California has only

55:50.643 --> 55:51.963
increased since then.

55:51.960 --> 55:57.830
The amount of water pumped has
increased and the land keeps

55:57.829 --> 56:03.499
falling at a very noticeable
rate, so it's a very graphic

56:03.496 --> 56:04.506
thing.

56:04.510 --> 56:07.830
Now, from when you suck out the
water,

56:07.829 --> 56:11.739
it takes quite a while for the
rock to sort of collapse and

56:11.737 --> 56:15.777
fall down because it's got some
structural strength to it.

56:15.780 --> 56:18.930
If you can see how the much the
land has fallen,

56:18.929 --> 56:22.379
you can just imagine how much
the water table itself has

56:22.382 --> 56:25.412
fallen,
many times more than the actual

56:25.405 --> 56:26.715
land has fallen.

56:26.719 --> 56:30.569
In some places you can measure
this fairly readily.

56:30.570 --> 56:34.650
In parts of Texas and Arizona
water tables have dropped

56:34.648 --> 56:39.058
hundreds of feet,
even in northwest of Chicago

56:39.057 --> 56:44.957
there's been a 200 to 300 foot
drop in the water table,

56:44.960 --> 56:46.290
just sucking it out.

56:46.289 --> 56:49.969
Three quarters of Texas'
irrigated area water tables are

56:49.965 --> 56:53.035
falling and this is true all
over the world.

56:53.039 --> 56:55.759
I mean the United States is
very technological so we do a

56:55.764 --> 56:58.654
lot of drilling,
but the north China plain,

56:58.650 --> 57:01.740
which is,
again, where the wheat in China

57:01.737 --> 57:05.997
is grown,
drops 40 inches every year.

57:06.000 --> 57:08.980
Tamil Nadu in India,
southern India,

57:08.976 --> 57:14.326
another very productive part of
the world, 100 inches a year the

57:14.333 --> 57:16.803
water tables are falling.

57:16.800 --> 57:21.270
There's a study that just came
out--in February,

57:21.273 --> 57:26.983
which measures the groundwater
levels that are coming--of the

57:26.983 --> 57:30.603
water coming out of the
Himalayas.

57:30.599 --> 57:32.989
So, the Himalayas,
as you know,

57:32.994 --> 57:37.704
sit right in the center of Asia
and the Yellow River and the

57:37.704 --> 57:40.744
Yangtze River sort of feed
China,

57:40.739 --> 57:45.269
and you have the Helmand River
feeds Afghanistan,

57:45.268 --> 57:50.198
the Indus River feeds Pakistan
and the Ganges River feeds north

57:50.197 --> 57:54.647
India and you've got the Ganges
goes into Bangladesh,

57:54.650 --> 57:57.810
the Brahmaputra,
the Meghna all feed the

57:57.809 --> 58:00.739
Bangladesh area,
then you have the Mekong,

58:00.744 --> 58:03.554
and the Salween,
and the Irrawaddy,

58:03.545 --> 58:08.115
which do Vietnam and Thailand,
and Cambodia,

58:08.123 --> 58:14.833
and Burma, so all of these come
out of the Himalaya mountains.

58:14.829 --> 58:15.949
What's happening?

58:15.949 --> 58:21.799
The groundwater in these
regions is going down 2 to 4

58:21.804 --> 58:28.454
meters a year so that's 6 to
12,13 feet every year the water

58:28.447 --> 58:30.697
table goes down.

58:30.699 --> 58:34.179
Venice is sinking for similar
reasons;

58:34.179 --> 58:36.509
it's much smaller,
only 9 inches in the whole

58:36.510 --> 58:37.040
century.

58:37.039 --> 58:40.189
Bangkok is sinking 13
centimeters a year.

58:40.190 --> 58:44.180
Mexico City--I hope I have
those slides here.

58:44.179 --> 58:49.879


58:49.880 --> 58:54.270
Mexico City is sinking in a
drastic way there's very--since

58:54.273 --> 58:58.823
it's so prominent there's very
good data from Mexico City.

58:58.820 --> 59:02.320
Mexico City put in a subway,
a wonderful subway,

59:02.320 --> 59:06.640
if--I had a young lady with me
when I was in the subway;

59:06.639 --> 59:10.799
aside from getting squeezed you
get groped in the Mexico City

59:10.795 --> 59:11.415
subway.

59:11.420 --> 59:15.750
They laid it flat,
but now with the ground--

59:15.750 --> 59:18.560
the sucking out of the water
the ground is sinking and it

59:18.556 --> 59:22.356
doesn't sink evenly,
so now the subway is like this

59:22.356 --> 59:27.116
and some of it that was
underground is now above ground

59:27.123 --> 59:32.333
because the ground has just
sunken away from the subway.

59:32.329 --> 59:38.379
The sewers and the water supply
have exactly the same problem.

59:38.380 --> 59:43.360
Water--in Mexico City,
the city itself has sunk 30

59:43.356 --> 59:48.636
feet from when the subway was
originally put down.

59:48.639 --> 59:54.219
Water pipe that was laying flat
on the ground in 1934 is now 26

59:54.219 --> 59:59.529
feet over everyone's head and
some suburbs are sinking about

59:59.530 --> 1:00:01.690
two feet every year.

1:00:01.690 --> 1:00:07.680
Student:  How come all
this stuff doesn't also just

1:00:07.681 --> 1:00:09.681
sink down evenly?

1:00:09.679 --> 1:00:11.799
Prof: Because it's
all--it's uneven and I don't

1:00:11.800 --> 1:00:13.120
really know the answer to that.

1:00:13.119 --> 1:00:15.279
The question is why doesn't
everything sort of just sink

1:00:15.277 --> 1:00:15.627
evenly?

1:00:15.630 --> 1:00:18.780
It just doesn't happen,
so a flat subway ends up like

1:00:18.775 --> 1:00:19.195
this.

1:00:19.199 --> 1:00:20.599
Student:  Like the pole
in California,

1:00:20.597 --> 1:00:21.897
why doesn't it just sink to the
ground?

1:00:21.900 --> 1:00:24.570
What is it attached too?

1:00:24.570 --> 1:00:26.890
Prof: I don't know how
they arranged that pole,

1:00:26.889 --> 1:00:29.429
you would think everything
would sink, yes I don't know.

1:00:29.429 --> 1:00:34.429
They may--I don't know,
just don't know the answer.

1:00:34.429 --> 1:00:38.439
In Mexico City the water
supply, as more water is pumped,

1:00:38.440 --> 1:00:41.100
of course the city--the rate of
pumping is faster,

1:00:41.099 --> 1:00:45.329
the city sinks faster and
there's--the pipes eventually

1:00:45.327 --> 1:00:50.257
get twisted and they rupture so
there's now 40,000 repaired--

1:00:50.260 --> 1:00:53.880
ruptures that they repair each
year and many more that they--

1:00:53.880 --> 1:00:57.640
they're not even reported and
they don't get around to

1:00:57.643 --> 1:00:58.853
repairing them.

1:00:58.849 --> 1:01:03.659
Apparently one-third of the
water in the system leaks out,

1:01:03.659 --> 1:01:07.699
and a lot of the city lies
below the sewer lines now,

1:01:07.699 --> 1:01:10.249
so the sewage doesn't leave the
city any more,

1:01:10.250 --> 1:01:13.610
it collects in pools,
and they have now had to

1:01:13.608 --> 1:01:17.338
construct vast pumping stations
to pump it out--

1:01:17.340 --> 1:01:21.880
the sewage back out from these
pools.

1:01:21.880 --> 1:01:27.060
They have--they're building a
whole new, much deeper sewage

1:01:27.057 --> 1:01:31.967
system, they're building 124
miles of 80 foot sewers.

1:01:31.969 --> 1:01:33.469
That's enough of that.

1:01:33.469 --> 1:01:37.519
I think you get the message
here.

1:01:37.519 --> 1:01:41.819
Let me have a few more minutes.

1:01:41.820 --> 1:01:43.950
I put in your reading and just
something that you may think,

1:01:43.949 --> 1:01:47.309
well, why did he put that in,
is how much is being paid for

1:01:47.309 --> 1:01:49.569
caviar and fish and things like
that.

1:01:49.570 --> 1:01:53.170
Its part of a longer piece that
I'm not going to have time talk

1:01:53.166 --> 1:01:55.886
about,
but there's a lot of fish in

1:01:55.885 --> 1:01:58.245
the sea,
but there's a lot of people

1:01:58.246 --> 1:02:01.326
that want to eat fish,
so fishing is one of those

1:02:01.329 --> 1:02:05.209
industries that's really just
cleaning out the sea of fish.

1:02:05.210 --> 1:02:08.110
When there were small boats,
things were okay,

1:02:08.106 --> 1:02:09.906
the fish could regenerate.

1:02:09.909 --> 1:02:12.789
But now Korea,
and East Germany,

1:02:12.786 --> 1:02:16.966
and Japan have these huge,
huge ships that have

1:02:16.974 --> 1:02:21.464
miles--their nets are miles and
miles long and they just suck

1:02:21.456 --> 1:02:25.786
everything out of the sea so the
fish are disappearing.

1:02:25.789 --> 1:02:30.589
You'd think that economically
that as the fish disappear,

1:02:30.590 --> 1:02:33.600
and even when they can't
reproduce themselves,

1:02:33.599 --> 1:02:40.389
it would get the--uneconomical
to catch the fish anymore.

1:02:40.389 --> 1:02:44.069
In actual fact what happens is
that,

1:02:44.070 --> 1:02:47.300
in the fishing,
there's presumably good fish

1:02:47.295 --> 1:02:50.525
that people like to eat,
and what happens is,

1:02:50.529 --> 1:02:54.339
as those get fished out you go
down to the next level of fish.

1:02:54.340 --> 1:02:56.710
If you've been going to
restaurants a while you see

1:02:56.706 --> 1:02:59.306
this, every couple of years
there's some new fish on the

1:02:59.309 --> 1:03:00.919
menu that I've never heard of.

1:03:00.920 --> 1:03:03.640
Have you had that experience?

1:03:03.639 --> 1:03:06.439
That's because the fish that
you ate two or three years are

1:03:06.438 --> 1:03:09.238
now gone because they've been
fished out, so the quality of

1:03:09.235 --> 1:03:10.775
the fish goes down and down.

1:03:10.780 --> 1:03:15.350
If people have money,
they still want to buy the

1:03:15.349 --> 1:03:20.799
better quality fish and it turns
out they will pay almost

1:03:20.795 --> 1:03:24.875
anything for this better quality
fish.

1:03:24.880 --> 1:03:27.670
What happens is then,
instead of the economics

1:03:27.670 --> 1:03:30.270
working for you,
that as it gets more expensive

1:03:30.271 --> 1:03:32.451
to catch fish,
you let off on the fish,

1:03:32.447 --> 1:03:36.677
the price of the fish goes up,
so that it's still worthwhile

1:03:36.677 --> 1:03:38.367
to catch those fish.

1:03:38.369 --> 1:03:40.839
What happens then that
the--because of that economics,

1:03:40.840 --> 1:03:45.090
the pressure to catch these
fish to extinction keeps up

1:03:45.092 --> 1:03:49.742
there and some of the outrageous
prices that I gave you,

1:03:49.739 --> 1:03:56.189
that's the point of that kind
of stuff.

1:03:56.190 --> 1:04:00.490
What you should realize is that
environmental destruction is

1:04:00.494 --> 1:04:04.514
essentially--most of it--a lot
of it is irreversible.

1:04:04.510 --> 1:04:05.710
Loss of species is
irreversible,

1:04:05.711 --> 1:04:07.731
I mean if you want to wait
hundred million years,

1:04:07.730 --> 1:04:11.190
yes species will differentiate
and you'll get new species but

1:04:11.186 --> 1:04:13.026
that's basically irreversible.

1:04:13.030 --> 1:04:17.770
Things like fishing out various
species in the sea so that they

1:04:17.766 --> 1:04:21.506
don't recover is an irreversible
kind of thing.

1:04:21.510 --> 1:04:24.640
Loss of habitat is generally
irreversible.

1:04:24.639 --> 1:04:28.209
I think I described to you
northeast of Brazil where,

1:04:28.210 --> 1:04:31.620
or all of Brazil,
all of any jungle region where

1:04:31.617 --> 1:04:35.607
the whole ecosystem is kept
going by the amount of fungi

1:04:35.606 --> 1:04:38.866
that recycle the nutrients in
the jungle.

1:04:38.869 --> 1:04:41.369
When you cut down the trees the
sun beats down,

1:04:41.369 --> 1:04:44.219
kills the fungi,
you no longer have this mat of

1:04:44.222 --> 1:04:46.842
fungi,
so now something falls into it,

1:04:46.838 --> 1:04:50.128
it doesn't get decomposed,
the nutrients don't go back

1:04:50.130 --> 1:04:50.980
into the trees.

1:04:50.980 --> 1:04:54.500
The whole land dries out and
becomes what they call laterite

1:04:54.498 --> 1:04:58.078
which is hard soil,
hard like rock soil,

1:04:58.077 --> 1:05:02.157
and it's not clear that that
ever,

1:05:02.159 --> 1:05:04.919
ever can recover.

1:05:04.920 --> 1:05:06.730
Fish stocks.

1:05:06.730 --> 1:05:10.730
The cod stocks declined like
20,30 years ago and they really

1:05:10.728 --> 1:05:14.008
have not come back,
even though they've really cut

1:05:14.014 --> 1:05:16.414
down the fishing and banned it
mostly,

1:05:16.409 --> 1:05:18.839
they're not coming back.

1:05:18.840 --> 1:05:23.910
There's apparently too small of
a population for the

1:05:23.909 --> 1:05:27.389
reproduction system to work
well.

1:05:27.389 --> 1:05:30.549
Because this is irreversible,
because--this is a very

1:05:30.554 --> 1:05:33.414
important point,
because environmental damage is

1:05:33.414 --> 1:05:35.914
irreversible as population
increases.

1:05:35.909 --> 1:05:38.769
As the world economy increases,
the pressure on the environment

1:05:38.768 --> 1:05:39.828
gets worse and worse.

1:05:39.829 --> 1:05:43.739
You can imagine a nice scenario
where eventually population

1:05:43.740 --> 1:05:47.450
comes down and maybe some of the
pressure is let off.

1:05:47.449 --> 1:05:50.039
But, what you'll have to worry
about is that peak because the

1:05:50.039 --> 1:05:52.239
things that are going to
disappear irreversibly,

1:05:52.239 --> 1:05:53.779
your species,
your habitat,

1:05:53.777 --> 1:05:56.437
your so forth depend not on the
level now,

1:05:56.440 --> 1:05:59.060
but on the maximum demand.

1:05:59.059 --> 1:06:02.319
That once the maximum--When and
if the maximum demand comes off

1:06:02.322 --> 1:06:02.852
it's ok.

1:06:02.849 --> 1:06:10.159
What we have to worry about is
this peak size of population and

1:06:10.161 --> 1:06:14.291
other demands on the
environment.

1:06:14.289 --> 1:06:17.479
it's this peak size that
becomes important.

1:06:17.480 --> 1:06:21.740
We've seen the great range of
variability in the UN

1:06:21.744 --> 1:06:22.944
projections.

1:06:22.940 --> 1:06:25.670
We could reach a peak at a
billion more people,

1:06:25.670 --> 1:06:26.890
or two billion,
or three, or four,

1:06:26.885 --> 1:06:28.305
or five,
or six, or seven,

1:06:28.306 --> 1:06:31.886
or 12, or who knows how many
more billions and which of those

1:06:31.891 --> 1:06:35.001
curves happens is not going to
be a random event.

1:06:35.000 --> 1:06:38.820
It depends on what humans do
right now.

1:06:38.820 --> 1:06:43.140
Because of momentum,
the people that are born now

1:06:43.139 --> 1:06:48.539
are going to have children and
they're a cumulative factor in

1:06:48.539 --> 1:06:50.339
the environment.

1:06:50.340 --> 1:06:52.320
So whatever the birth rate now
is,

1:06:52.320 --> 1:06:54.660
whatever the population growth
rate is now,

1:06:54.659 --> 1:06:57.479
if that eventually stops
there's still momentum for

1:06:57.483 --> 1:06:59.013
another 100 or 150 years.

1:06:59.010 --> 1:07:02.140
I showed you the data from
various countries showing that,

1:07:02.139 --> 1:07:04.539
even after they reach
replacement level fertility,

1:07:04.539 --> 1:07:09.429
their population grows for
another 100 years or so forth.

1:07:09.429 --> 1:07:12.859
Again, what we do now
determines the maximum

1:07:12.855 --> 1:07:16.355
environmental destruction that's
going on.

1:07:16.360 --> 1:07:19.250
I think one of the most
important points is that

1:07:19.250 --> 1:07:21.710
environmental solutions are
difficult.

1:07:21.710 --> 1:07:25.080
It is not an easy job to fix
the environment.

1:07:25.079 --> 1:07:27.539
Like global warming,
there's huge arguments whether

1:07:27.543 --> 1:07:30.603
we should try to prevent or
should we just try to adapt it,

1:07:30.599 --> 1:07:33.659
and I think half your courses
in the Forestry School are,

1:07:33.659 --> 1:07:33.829
'No.

1:07:33.829 --> 1:07:36.329
It's better to let it happen
and it's going to be cheaper to

1:07:36.329 --> 1:07:37.219
adapt to it."

1:07:37.219 --> 1:07:39.469
And the other half of the
courses are saying "It's a

1:07:39.465 --> 1:07:41.145
horrible thing,
we've got to try to prevent

1:07:41.148 --> 1:07:41.668
it."

1:07:41.670 --> 1:07:44.510
Mostly, like using solar power,
wind power--

1:07:44.510 --> 1:07:49.380
the costs--nuclear power even,
the costs are so very high that

1:07:49.375 --> 1:07:53.675
with current technology the
alternatives are really not

1:07:53.682 --> 1:07:54.722
feasible.

1:07:54.719 --> 1:07:56.809
What's happening is,
China is building a new coal

1:07:56.811 --> 1:07:57.641
plant every week.

1:07:57.639 --> 1:08:00.769
They would love to reduce their
pollution.

1:08:00.769 --> 1:08:02.349
They've done whatever they can.

1:08:02.349 --> 1:08:05.139
But their population is still
growing, they have that huge

1:08:05.135 --> 1:08:07.085
poor population,
they need the energy.

1:08:07.090 --> 1:08:09.910
They have no choice now but to
build power plants.

1:08:09.909 --> 1:08:11.159
What do you tell the Chinese to
do?

1:08:11.159 --> 1:08:15.159
No, you people should keep
being poor, don't build the coal

1:08:15.155 --> 1:08:16.185
power plants.

1:08:16.189 --> 1:08:18.689
Well we don't say that and
they're not going to do it

1:08:18.685 --> 1:08:21.465
anyway, because their people
demand some decent standard of

1:08:21.467 --> 1:08:23.097
living, which requires energy.

1:08:23.100 --> 1:08:29.110
So the CO_2 in the
air goes crazy.

1:08:29.109 --> 1:08:33.689
There are no easy fixes for the
environment from that kind of

1:08:33.685 --> 1:08:34.215
side.

1:08:34.220 --> 1:08:37.810
It's a really very hard job.

1:08:37.810 --> 1:08:41.910
The only success that one could
really claim in the last say 50

1:08:41.914 --> 1:08:45.764
years for what you might call
the environmental movement is

1:08:45.755 --> 1:08:49.315
the population,
is on the population front.

1:08:49.319 --> 1:08:51.419
You've seen,
I've shown you many,

1:08:51.417 --> 1:08:54.167
many times that around the
third world,

1:08:54.170 --> 1:08:57.650
up until 1950,1960,
the birthrate was six,

1:08:57.649 --> 1:09:02.419
seven, eight people--children
per woman and now it's dropped

1:09:02.420 --> 1:09:06.010
to below half that,
in fact to about 2.8.

1:09:06.010 --> 1:09:08.680
So it's something like less
than half of that;

1:09:08.680 --> 1:09:13.600
enormous progress in that area.

1:09:13.600 --> 1:09:17.000
I've shown you again in many
different ways that people want

1:09:17.001 --> 1:09:20.631
fewer children in every country,
every developing country of the

1:09:20.632 --> 1:09:21.212
world.

1:09:21.210 --> 1:09:24.320
You ask, how many they want
and--you find out how many they

1:09:24.323 --> 1:09:24.703
have.

1:09:24.698 --> 1:09:27.698
In every country the number
that they're having is above

1:09:27.701 --> 1:09:29.721
what they want and massive
effects.

1:09:29.720 --> 1:09:31.900
There's usually--like Bolivia
which is not one of your most

1:09:31.895 --> 1:09:34.445
advanced countries,
and universally around the

1:09:34.451 --> 1:09:37.241
world 70%,
80% of the women want to not

1:09:37.242 --> 1:09:38.312
have children.

1:09:38.310 --> 1:09:43.400
70% just totally don't want it;
another 10%--well not in the

1:09:43.400 --> 1:09:44.860
next two years.

1:09:44.859 --> 1:09:49.329
The technology we have,
condoms are not wonderful,

1:09:49.328 --> 1:09:51.328
birth control pills are not
wonderful,

1:09:51.328 --> 1:09:54.948
and they're not wonderful,
but they're good enough to do

1:09:54.951 --> 1:09:55.611
the job.

1:09:55.609 --> 1:10:01.189
Population is the rare issue
where a lot has been done and a

1:10:01.188 --> 1:10:02.888
lot can be done.

1:10:02.890 --> 1:10:05.050
We don't have to win the hearts
and minds of the people;

1:10:05.050 --> 1:10:08.130
they're already telling us they
want fewer children than they're

1:10:08.130 --> 1:10:08.570
having.

1:10:08.569 --> 1:10:10.239
We don't need new technology.

1:10:10.238 --> 1:10:13.418
It's dirt cheap compared to
the--compared to getting rid of

1:10:13.417 --> 1:10:15.717
carbon in the atmosphere or
reducing it.

1:10:15.720 --> 1:10:18.670
It's dirt cheap,
I mean a cycle of pills on the

1:10:18.671 --> 1:10:21.561
world market is $0.80,
a diaphragm is a $1.25,

1:10:21.559 --> 1:10:23.869
I mean we're talking dirt
cheap.

1:10:23.868 --> 1:10:27.098
The medical knowledge to
provide these things is almost

1:10:27.104 --> 1:10:30.524
at the barefoot doctor level so
you don't need very highly

1:10:30.520 --> 1:10:34.150
trained personnel,
and as I mentioned to you,

1:10:34.154 --> 1:10:39.274
labor and even educated labor
in the developing countries is

1:10:39.269 --> 1:10:40.049
cheap.

1:10:40.050 --> 1:10:43.080


1:10:43.078 --> 1:10:45.908
Of all the possible things one
can do to improve the

1:10:45.911 --> 1:10:50.181
environmental situation,
it looks to me like encouraging

1:10:50.177 --> 1:10:55.267
the continued decline of
fertility is the easiest thing.

1:10:55.270 --> 1:10:58.090
You don't have to spend a lot
of money,

1:10:58.090 --> 1:11:00.460
most of the people in the world
will be 'Yeah,

1:11:00.460 --> 1:11:03.870
rah, rah, I want that,' and
we've seen from Ryerson's

1:11:03.872 --> 1:11:06.762
lecture here that with a very
little bit--

1:11:06.760 --> 1:11:11.080
I mean he puts on one soap
opera which runs for two,

1:11:11.078 --> 1:11:14.318
three times a week for like a
year which is significant but

1:11:14.322 --> 1:11:16.672
very small intervention and very
cheap,

1:11:16.670 --> 1:11:19.460
and the number of people going
to family planning clinics

1:11:19.457 --> 1:11:21.197
doubles and triples and it
just--

1:11:21.198 --> 1:11:24.308
an incredible amount of
progress with a very small

1:11:24.307 --> 1:11:26.317
input,
so this is a very,

1:11:26.319 --> 1:11:27.839
very doable thing.

1:11:27.840 --> 1:11:29.470
We have a long way to go.

1:11:29.470 --> 1:11:31.440
The fertility,
as I've said,

1:11:31.440 --> 1:11:35.160
has come down from six,
seven, and eight to 2.6 as a

1:11:35.164 --> 1:11:40.134
global average but 2.6 is still
a 30% increase every generation.

1:11:40.130 --> 1:11:44.670
Population growth,
I've just showed you is about a

1:11:44.666 --> 1:11:47.996
billion people every 13 years
now.

1:11:48.000 --> 1:11:49.110
It's still very high.

1:11:49.109 --> 1:11:53.779
Bringing it down further is
probably the only feasible,

1:11:53.779 --> 1:11:58.449
reasonably realistic thing that
one can do to massive--

1:11:58.448 --> 1:12:01.598
I mean the environment is going
to hell at such a massive rate

1:12:01.603 --> 1:12:04.033
--
we need some massive change and

1:12:04.034 --> 1:12:08.134
I don't think anything else
comes close to what you can do

1:12:08.126 --> 1:12:09.486
with population.

1:12:09.488 --> 1:12:12.628
I challenge the
environmentalists all the time,

1:12:12.626 --> 1:12:16.986
and I say, look every 13 years
there's another billion people.

1:12:16.988 --> 1:12:20.448
Add up all the
environmental--all that

1:12:20.452 --> 1:12:23.182
conservation,
that environmentalists have

1:12:23.181 --> 1:12:25.011
ever done,
all the restoration,

1:12:25.010 --> 1:12:28.980
add that up and compare that to
a footprint of a billion people

1:12:28.979 --> 1:12:29.939
in 13 years.

1:12:29.939 --> 1:12:34.349
It's not in the same--you're
just not in the same ballpark

1:12:34.350 --> 1:12:37.680
and yet that message doesn't get
through.

1:12:37.680 --> 1:12:40.550
There's a wonderful quote,
and this is (maybe the--

1:12:40.550 --> 1:12:44.920
cameras don't even want it),
that Peter Beard,

1:12:44.920 --> 1:12:48.190
who's one of the most famous
conservation writers in Africa

1:12:48.194 --> 1:12:51.754
and he's very outspoken and does
not use polite language all the

1:12:51.751 --> 1:12:52.261
time.

1:12:52.260 --> 1:12:55.440
This is a quote from him,
"I broke my ass to do

1:12:55.438 --> 1:12:56.628
these conscientious books."

1:12:56.630 --> 1:12:59.480
He did all kinds of books on
the environment in Africa.

1:12:59.479 --> 1:13:02.319
"But the public's not
getting it at all.

1:13:02.319 --> 1:13:05.999
You show them photographs of
30,000 carcasses with the ivory

1:13:06.002 --> 1:13:09.002
tusks still in place,"
that's elephants--

1:13:09.000 --> 1:13:12.060
30,000 ivory elephants,
"And the tusks are still

1:13:12.061 --> 1:13:15.421
in place and they try to tell
you that we should prosecute

1:13:15.417 --> 1:13:18.007
poachers"
as if that was the issue.

1:13:18.010 --> 1:13:21.140
"Doesn't anyone realize
that people are hungry and using

1:13:21.144 --> 1:13:22.454
these animals for food?

1:13:22.448 --> 1:13:24.498
People still think its wild
Africa.

1:13:24.500 --> 1:13:27.980
Doesn't anyone realize that
this is all about population

1:13:27.975 --> 1:13:28.665
pressure?

1:13:28.670 --> 1:13:31.550
What the"--and he uses the
'F' word, "What the 'F's'

1:13:31.551 --> 1:13:34.011
going on out there in the
CONservation word?"

1:13:34.010 --> 1:13:37.070
He capitalizes "con"
as for con job,

1:13:37.073 --> 1:13:40.413
"Nothing but lies,
fundraising lies."

1:13:40.408 --> 1:13:43.018
I think we are--I mean he
overstates things,

1:13:43.020 --> 1:13:45.690
and as you know,
that's one of my pedagogical

1:13:45.693 --> 1:13:48.673
tools is to engage somewhat in
overstatement.

1:13:48.670 --> 1:13:53.310
You remember it though.

1:13:53.310 --> 1:13:56.300
The whole environmental
movement has got its head in the

1:13:56.298 --> 1:13:59.608
sand about the one thing that
could really probably make a big

1:13:59.613 --> 1:14:00.433
difference.

1:14:00.430 --> 1:14:04.710
Just to conclude,
the earth is in a big race.

1:14:04.710 --> 1:14:08.140
I've shown you population is
increasing, environmental

1:14:08.141 --> 1:14:11.771
problems are increasing,
but fertility is coming down.

1:14:11.770 --> 1:14:16.020
Depending on how these two
countervailing forces work,

1:14:16.020 --> 1:14:19.240
in the future we will either
come to a smooth landing,

1:14:19.238 --> 1:14:21.828
a soft landing,
that fertility will come down

1:14:21.826 --> 1:14:24.936
fast enough that takes the
pressure off the increasing

1:14:24.940 --> 1:14:27.580
environmental issues,
or it won't,

1:14:27.579 --> 1:14:31.559
or population won't come down
fast enough.

1:14:31.560 --> 1:14:34.900
Then we're off into who knows
what.

1:14:34.899 --> 1:14:37.559
That's I think what to take
away from this course,

1:14:37.560 --> 1:14:41.460
the tremendous race between the
increase of population,

1:14:41.460 --> 1:14:45.410
a billion people every 13
years, the decline in fertility,

1:14:45.408 --> 1:14:49.648
a decline since 1960 in about
40,50 years declined to more

1:14:49.646 --> 1:14:50.536
than half.

1:14:50.538 --> 1:14:55.208
How is that race going to be
won and what are we--which side

1:14:55.212 --> 1:14:59.812
is going to win that race and
what can we politically--what

1:14:59.807 --> 1:15:01.627
can we do about it?

1:15:01.630 --> 1:15:03.600
Have a good summer and have a
good test.

1:15:03.600 --> 1:15:07.900
>

1:15:07.899 --> 1:15:12.999