defense of it, but I imagine it stems from the fact that, as individuals, we can choose to reproduce or not. The fact that — as a species — our growth began to soar as soon as we began to increase food availability at will seems to them a mere coincidence. The record of the past ten thousand years, after some three million years of relative population stability, holds no significance for them (Peter Farb, a distinguished naturalist, linguist, and anthropologist, perceived it as a paradox: "Intensification of production to feed an increased population leads to a still greater increase in population"). In effect, they deny that the Agricultural Revolution had anything to do with our growth from a few hundred million to six billion.
Elaine . That hardly seems rational.
Daniel . Almost nothing exerts a more powerful hold on people's minds than unexamined and unchallenged received wisdom — and human exceptionalism is certainly a part of that legacy. In fact, it must have seemed quite daring back in 2001 when a peer-reviewed scientific journal actually published a paper affirming the connection between population and food availability ("Human Population Numbers as a Function of Food Supply" by Russell Hopfenberg and David Pimentel, Environment, Development and Sustainability 3 (2001): 1-15).
Elaine . It's amazing to me that that should seem daring.
Daniel . Trust me, the doctrine of human exceptionalism is deep set in Mother Culture's heart... Here's a little story you'll find amusing that isn't entirely off the point. [ Goes to get a book. ] In the very early stages of work on the book that ultimately became Ishmael , I wanted to know if there was any estimate of the human population before the Agricultural Revolution. As I later learned, there are many different estimates, but I first turned to a reference I had on hand, the Dunlop Illustrated Encyclopedia of Facts , published in 1969. Unlike like most books of its kind, which are either assembled by nameless staff workers or are collections of articles by various authorities, this one had a single pair of authors, Norris and Ross McWhirter, who were clearly not averse to expressing conclusions as well as facts. They didn't have the particular information I was looking for, but in an article on "Growth of the Human Population" I found a very useful chart of population estimates for roughly the past two thousand years and extending thirty years ahead to the year 2000, where they correctly estimated it would be around six billion. Following the chart was this observation: "If this trend continues, the world has only fifteen generations left before the human race breeds itself to an overcrowded extinction. By 2600 AD there would be one person per square yard of habitable land surface." It's their next statement that was of special importance: "Increasing food production merely aggravates the problem by broadening the base of the expansion and hastening rather than postponing the end." And I thought, "Well, of course. That's obvious."
Elaine . It is obvious.
Daniel . And because it seemed so obvious, my original presentation in Ishmael of the connection between food production and population growth was almost offhand. I soon found out that what is obvious to you and me is very far from being obvious to the public at large. I expanded my presentation of the subject for the paperback edition, but from the public's reaction I could see that this was still not enough. In The Story of B I presented the subject at even greater length — and it still wasn't enough.
One night at some personal appearance (I don't recall where it was) the subject of food production and population growth came up again, and after some discussion one audience member stood up and stormed out after declaring that I was the most obscene person she'd ever encountered.
Elaine . I can't understand that.
Daniel . Ah, but you see, despite the fact that "Increasing food production merely aggravates the
Elaine . That hardly seems rational.
Daniel . Almost nothing exerts a more powerful hold on people's minds than unexamined and unchallenged received wisdom — and human exceptionalism is certainly a part of that legacy. In fact, it must have seemed quite daring back in 2001 when a peer-reviewed scientific journal actually published a paper affirming the connection between population and food availability ("Human Population Numbers as a Function of Food Supply" by Russell Hopfenberg and David Pimentel, Environment, Development and Sustainability 3 (2001): 1-15).
Elaine . It's amazing to me that that should seem daring.
Daniel . Trust me, the doctrine of human exceptionalism is deep set in Mother Culture's heart... Here's a little story you'll find amusing that isn't entirely off the point. [ Goes to get a book. ] In the very early stages of work on the book that ultimately became Ishmael , I wanted to know if there was any estimate of the human population before the Agricultural Revolution. As I later learned, there are many different estimates, but I first turned to a reference I had on hand, the Dunlop Illustrated Encyclopedia of Facts , published in 1969. Unlike like most books of its kind, which are either assembled by nameless staff workers or are collections of articles by various authorities, this one had a single pair of authors, Norris and Ross McWhirter, who were clearly not averse to expressing conclusions as well as facts. They didn't have the particular information I was looking for, but in an article on "Growth of the Human Population" I found a very useful chart of population estimates for roughly the past two thousand years and extending thirty years ahead to the year 2000, where they correctly estimated it would be around six billion. Following the chart was this observation: "If this trend continues, the world has only fifteen generations left before the human race breeds itself to an overcrowded extinction. By 2600 AD there would be one person per square yard of habitable land surface." It's their next statement that was of special importance: "Increasing food production merely aggravates the problem by broadening the base of the expansion and hastening rather than postponing the end." And I thought, "Well, of course. That's obvious."
Elaine . It is obvious.
Daniel . And because it seemed so obvious, my original presentation in Ishmael of the connection between food production and population growth was almost offhand. I soon found out that what is obvious to you and me is very far from being obvious to the public at large. I expanded my presentation of the subject for the paperback edition, but from the public's reaction I could see that this was still not enough. In The Story of B I presented the subject at even greater length — and it still wasn't enough.
One night at some personal appearance (I don't recall where it was) the subject of food production and population growth came up again, and after some discussion one audience member stood up and stormed out after declaring that I was the most obscene person she'd ever encountered.
Elaine . I can't understand that.
Daniel . Ah, but you see, despite the fact that "Increasing food production merely aggravates the
Similar Books
