The common or garden, or simple assumption about the relationship between population size and resource consumption states that there is a direct relationship between the two. Clearly this assumption misses the point as to who is doing the consuming, when comparing those in developed and less developed regions. But I am wondering if the reverse assumption also holds, that population losses would lead to consumption falls, and whether this has been researched anywhere.
Hi Peter,
Question is of course if on this globe anyone has already observed population decline NOT due to a worsening of living conditions? An example of a country experiencing a drop in in average age of death is Russia. In Russia population is bound to decline, and the reason for this well known, a drastic increase in alcohol consumption and addiction. This is especially expressed for the male part of the population. Hence in Russia, where we cannot speak of polluted drinking water or famine the reason for population decline is due to increased alcoholism.
Some examples are also known from the French countryside. There has been (the trend is changing again) a depopulation of the French countryside, especially in the most remote villages. Traditional agriculture was not profitable any more and small farmers moved to the big cities. Evidently this led to a decline in local (resource) consumption. But for France as a whole consumption including resource consumption increased, due to increased urbanization.
Hence, it might not be abnormal that it is hard to find studies on resource consumption decline due to population decline. Sometimes a population decline is due to a loss (death), but mostly a population decline in a certain area leads to an increase in urbanization in many if not all countries on this globe, with an increase in resource consumption as a consequence, because local consumption requires less energy than the massive transportation modes needed to sustain and provide the resources required for a city with millions and millons of inhabitants to be fed, provided with drinking water, housing, heating, electric energy, etcetera,...
Some cities do not manage to get these logistics organized. New Delhi, Mumbai are pretty good examples with citizens dying in the streets. And in India when you die in the streets it is just due to your bad karma. Hence nobody cares. Still population in India grows, but don't ask anybody about the quality of life of 65 % of the population. That's due a bad karma of these folks. If you like contrasts between rich and poor, visit India a Mekka of fatalism of the poor
Cheers,
Frank
Thanks very much for your answer, Frank. I am currently in the early stages of doing research on this issue in Japan, and I think there's something counter-intuitive to say. One day I want to publish, but I'm still working through the data and gathering ideas, so you're answer was very helpful.
Thanks Peter,
It's a pleasure to break my mind on this type of topic.
Cheers,
Frank
Hi Peter,
It may be worth looking at research from east Germany where quite a lot has been done on how land use consumption changed following the re-unification. Despite vast depopulation as people headed west for work the change in ideology and relaxation in planning laws lead to increased land consumption in the former DDR. Though the cores of cities such as Leipzig emptied and suffered neglect in the early to mid nineties their outer regions sprawled with the construction of huge retail parks and single family homes.
Similar trends have been observed in other former communist states as capitalism, urbanisation and suburbanisation affect land use change. Hope this helps.
Best wishes,
Harry
Great information, Harry, and confirms that there's a lot more to this than meets the eye. I think assumptions need to be tested against real world data more rigorously to deliver any expected benefits of depopulation. Thanks very much.
There might be also historical examples e.g. from medieval ages, when large amounts of wood were burnt for iron procession and for daily life support. Corresponding communities had to adapt to limited resources either by emigration or by developing sustainable "allmende" regimes, which regulated resource consumtion. More data about this might be found in:
Bevölkerungswachstum und Naturhaushalt
Sieferle, Rolf Peter. - Frankfurt am Main : Suhrkamp, 1990, 1. Aufl.
The subterranean forest
Sieferle, Rolf Peter. - Knapwell, Cambridge : White Horse Press, 2001
Best, Stephan
Dear All,
Please correct me if I am wrong:
1. In areas with resource scarcity(some African & Asian countries), there is no drop in fertility and therefore no population loss, in fact birth rates soar.
2. In areas of high access to resources(many so-called developed countries) , there is obesity, drop in fertility and population loss.
Does this mean that population loss and resource consumption are directly related? Is this the premise of the initial question?
Thank you.
This is a good point, Raveendra!
However, fertility is one (central) determinant of population numbers among others, like migration, life spans etc. The latter might also depend on resources but also on other economically meaningful patterns of social life.
To my mind, the connection between resources and population is only weak or indirect.
Thanks for the the interesting discussion.
Thanks for the recommended reading Stephan. From the research I have done it seems that per capita consumption increases with ageing and depopulation in developed countries, due to reduced density living and so on. So the assumption that population decrease leads to reduced pressures on the natural environment may not be as straightforward as many assume. The problem is finding empirical evidence to test the various hypotheses. I think Japan would be a good place to do that, as it doesn't have some of the other complicating factors that exist, say, in Eastern Europe and Russia due to changes in political regimes, borders and so on. What do you think?
yes, Japan might be a good empirical case for that reasons.
Another detail is probably worth to consider w.r.t. the relation of innovation and environmental pressure. The so-called "environmental Kuznet's curve" depicts the natural resource consumption over the course of innovation processes. The curve is reversely u-shaped - what means that environmental pressure is expectedly low in the invention phase and at maximum when the first generation of new technologies become widely distributed. Further improvements e.g. w.r.t. energy efficiency will however lessen the pressure on environment again. The curve is based on aggregated empirical data and is therfore rather general. Its predictive power is therefore limited but may be useful for general considerations.
Hi Peter
This is a simple model that may help you in your research: The Simple Economics of Easter Island: A Ricardo-Malthus Model of Renewable Resource Use By JAMES A. BRANDER AND M. ScoTr TAYLOR *
And a more recent work on Mayan civilization: MayaSim: An Agent-Based Model of the Ancient Maya Social-Ecological System By Scott Eckbert (2013) Model: http://www.openabm.org/model/3063/version/4/view
Enjoy
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Microbiology
- Virology
- Virus