Energy and Human Ambitions on a Finite Planet, 2021a

3 Population 45
This means that the population more than doubles, or increases by
134%.
So to effect a demographic transition means to increase the population
burden substantially. Meanwhile, the transitioned population consumes
resources at a greater rate—a natural byproduct of running a more
advanced society having better medical care, education, <strong>and</strong> employment
opportunities. Transportation, manufacturing, <strong>and</strong> consumer activity all
increase. The net effect is a double-whammy: the combined impact of a
greater population using more resources per capita. The resource impact
on the planet soars.
The pertinent question is whether the Earth is prepared to host a dramatic
increase in resource usage. Just because we might find appealing the
idea that all countries on Earth could make it through the demographic
transition <strong>and</strong> live at a first-world st<strong>and</strong>ard does not mean nature has
the capacity to comply. The U.S. per-capita energy usage is roughly five
times the current global average. To bring 7 billion people to the same
st<strong>and</strong>ard would require five times the current scale. Completion of a
global demographic transition would roughly double the current world
population so that the total increase in energy would be a factor of
ten. The blue-dashed projection in Figure 3.17 looks rather absurd as
an extension of the more modest—but still rather remarkable—energy
climb to date. As we are straining to satisfy current energy dem<strong>and</strong>, the
“amazing dream” scenario seems unlikely to materialize.
<strong>Energy</strong> in this context is a proxy for other material resources. Consider
the global-scale challenges we have introduced today: deforestation,
fisheries collapse, water pressures, soil degradation, pollution, climate
change, <strong>and</strong> species loss, for instance. What makes us think we can
survive a global demographic transition leading to a consumption rate
many times higher than that of today? Does it not seem that we are
already approaching a breaking point?
If nature won’t let us realize a particular dream, then is it morally
responsible to pursue it? This question becomes particularly acute if the
very act of pursuing the dream increases the pressure on the system <strong>and</strong>
makes failure even more likely. Total suffering might be maximized if the
population builds to a point of collapse. In this sense, we cleverly stack
the most possible people into the stadium to witness a most spectacular
event: the stadium’s collapse—which only happened because we packed
the stadium. You see the irony, right?
Global Power (TW)
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
0
0
1950 2000 2050 2100
year
5
Population (Gppl)
Figure 3.17: What our energy dem<strong>and</strong>
would have to do (blue-dashed line) if the
growing global population (here projected
as a red-dashed logistic curve) grew its percapita
energy consumption to current U.S.
st<strong>and</strong>ards by the year 2100 (a factor-of-five
increase). Historical energy <strong>and</strong> population
are represented as solid curves. The departure
from past reality would have to be
staggering [15, 16].
The drive to realize a global demographic transition is strong, for the obvious
set of reasons discussed above (improved quality of life, educational
opportunity, greater tolerance, dignity, <strong>and</strong> fulfillment). Challenging the
vision may be an uphill battle, since awareness about resource limits is
not prevalent. This may be an example of the natural human tendency
to extrapolate: we have seen the benefits of the demographic transition
in many countries over the last century, <strong>and</strong> may expect this trend to
© 2021 T. W. Murphy, Jr.; Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Lic.;
Freely available at: https://escholarship.org/uc/energy_ambitions.