Signs of the times

Today is another day of unprecedented heat, 33 C with very high humidity. I think I heard the CBC radio weather forecaster say there's never before been a day in May when the temperature exceeded 30 C. Now we are having several in succession, yet another series of weather records in this year of one weather record after another. Weather records are being broken all around the world -- hotter in some regions, colder in others, wetter, or drier, or more stormy, than since the beginning of record-keeping. It all fits the climate change models, in which weather everywhere is becoming more extreme. Seasonal crop yields reflect these weather extremes too; in general, yields are down, food reserves are falling, have fallen below critical levels in many places. Here in north-eastern North America it's not only hotter than ever before, it's also drier, the rivers are low, lake water levels are down. This year's crop yields will be affected. My comments a few days ago about increasing populations and increasing violence struck chords with several readers of my rambling remarks; all chose to comment directly to me, rather than using the little box for 'public' comments (I suppose it's legitimate to refer to the 'public' because there do seem to be a surprisingly large number; I don't know whether I should feel pleased, flattered, or alarmed). So now I'll add another thought that might attract a few comments. I find myself agreeing with James Lovelock that by the end of this century, the human population of planet earth - Gaia, as he calls our home in the universe - may have collapsed to around a billion or fewer, rather than continuing to expand to 11 or 12 billion by 2050 and to 17-20 billion by 2100 as some demographic forecasts predict. It's certainly clear to any responsible, informed observer that present population levels are unsustainable, especially in huge mega-cities, many with unserviced peri-urban slums lacking credible infrastructure. Even without pestilence and war, the limiting factors of food and fresh water shortages in a hotter world than the world we live in now may be enough to generate a population crash on this scale. Mass starvation, in other words, is a distinct possibility. I wonder how many nations, if any, have national food policies of the kind that kept the British alive, and overall better fed than they had ever been before, despite the food losses due to submarines during the 1939-1945 world war. The British nation as a whole, and especially the children, emerged nutritionally better off than they had ever been, thanks to a food rationing policy that ensured sufficient for all, and a well balanced diet especially for infants and growing children. I believe James Lovelock is right and a population crash is certain within the next few decades. He and E O Wilson also lament the loss of biodiversity, the extinction of species. The greatest danger I think may come from the loss of species at the base of food chains, marine food chains in particular as well as those on land. That seemingly unstoppable oil spill off the coast of Louisiana, Alabama and now Florida about which I also commented a few weeks ago soon after it began, is beginning to damage and destroy sensitive ecological zones in wetlands along the coast and in the Mississippi delta. That's bad enough, but the real and more deadly damage may be occurring at the level of single-cell organisms and phytoplankton species, whose metabolism is disrupted not only by toxic substances in the oil, but also by chemicals used in attempts to disperse it. I don't know what proportion of the American people's protein requirements come directly or indirectly from the sea; in South and South-east Asia it's about 25-30%. It's probably quite a lot less in the USA, but it's an appreciable proportion for sure; and now that proportion is at risk. Where will the replacement protein come from?

Two other readers had a different comment on my post about violence, anarchy etc, more or less to the effect that people of European stock (and the Japanese, according to one reader) are in danger of declining in numbers while other 'races' (ethnic groups) are becoming more numerous. If this happens I don't see it as a 'danger' and I don't think this is relevant in our world of increasing demographic turbulence. I'm all in favour of miscegenation, the more the merrier. I think, without exception, the offspring of every 'mixed race' couple I know display the best attributes of each part of their genetic heritage. Our world will be the better for more miscegenation, not less. The most enlightened among my friends and acquaintances seem to share this view whenever the topic comes up in conversation, and I find this most encouraging.