1

Malthusians and Cornucopians

VivianLea Doubt

Thompson Rivers University

GEOG 230: Assignment number 4

 2

In our short history, but especially in the past fifty years, we have managed to
profane a continent that was some 6 billions years in the making. Which is why
former Justice William O. Douglas once urged the Supreme Court to grant
standing under the law to streams and mountains, arguing that, since they are at
least as real as corporations and ships, they might as well hold rights already
extended under the law to corporations and ships. (TRU Readings File, 2005)

The above paragraph by Thomas Emmel perhaps contrasts with that of Rene Dubos:

Its eerie light [the primeval forest] evokes in him a mood of wonder that cannot
be experienced in an orchard or a garden. Likewise, he recognizes the vastness of
the ocean and in the endless ebb and flow of its waves a mystic quality not found
in human environments. His response to the thunderous silence of deep canyons,
the solitude of high mountains, the luminosity of the deserts is the expression of
an aspect of his fundamental being that is still in resonance with cosmic events.
(TRU Readings File, 2005)

What both writers have in common, I think, is a love of, and respect for the earth. Emmel frames

the debate as between Malthusians and Cornucopians, and in some ways the two readings reflect

opposing sides. Let’s examine what each of these viewpoints is expressing in more detail.

Beginning with Emmel’s piece, a number of important themes are articulated which I

shall highlight:

Policy makers see the short term view, while the problems of environmental degradation
are long term.
The rise of Christianity and its worldview of “dominion over the earth” is sometimes
posited as the agent responsible for intensive despoliation of the earth. More “primitive”
cultures have often been better stewards.
The quote from Scientific American regarding the advent of the car he calls “brilliantly
unprophetic”.
Malthus and Marsh are mentioned as early writers on environmental concerns, why now
a global crisis? Two forces are converging: technology and the accelerated pace of
change, and the global population increasing at a phenomenal rate.
Speaks of the earth as our home, our body, the circle, the principle of holocoenosis,
Carson, “we can never do merely one thing”.
The interdependence of economic and social development and environmental protection.
The waste (America) of food, goods, energy – appetite remains unappeased.
GNP a flawed measure.
No industrial profits to be made from ideas such as biodynamic farming.
Malthusians and Cornucopians.
 3

Cultural institutions have distorted the values and priorities of peoples all over the world
by promoting the value of progress as simple accretion.
Concludes that technology rationally controlled and with nature allowed to provide
guidelines provides the solution.

Turning now to Dubos:

Man’s augmentation of the earth adds human values and fantasy to the ecological
determinism of nature.
History replete with ecological disasters. Environment being spoiled by misuse or
overuse, poisoning, poor ecological practices.
Refutes the statement of Barry Commoner “Nature knows best”. More than one possible
type of equilibrium possible/desirable in a given region.
“Only the most starry-eyed Panglossian optimist could claim that Nature knows best how
to achieve population control.”
Accumulations of organic origin a failure of nature to recycle.
Accumulation of solid wastes in technological societies a failure of man to recycle.
Problems of waste becoming acute because of scale and chemical composition – solution
is technological.
Only man can fully diversify the earth – primal forest of nature concealed much of it.
Scientific agricultural management and its successes.
Scientific agricultural management not sustainable – modern farmer expends more
calories than recovered in food. Dependent on cheap energy.
Interplay between man and nature has been a true symbiosis.
Cultural attitudes, more than natural conditions, are responsible for profound
differences… shaping of nature by culture.
Concludes that scientific knowledge and ecological wisdom can mange the earth in ways
that are favourable to civilization and environment.

I have made a point of highlighting these themes partly to draw attention to the fact that

the conclusions of each author are largely the same. In evaluating the ideas, we must

acknowledge that they were written for different audiences, and at a time when “back to nature”

and “full steam ahead for progress” seemed the only prevailing worldviews. I am not a “starry-

eyed Panglossian optimist”: I do not believe, paraphrasing Dr. Pangloss, that nature is the best of

all possible worlds. Neither am I a believer that technology is always best: such things as

walkable communities and green space are important to my quality of life. And I use the “I”

voice here to reinforce that these are my own very particular views that I write.
 4

In the intervening 30-odd years since these words were written, we have not solved the

problem that our politicians still plan for the short term; this is not a recipe for success in solving

long-term problems. The scientific and academic/scientific community have failed, outside of the

purview of universities and institutions, to speak urgently, in layman’s terms, on the scientific

consequences of environmental alterations on a large scale. We can see that many natural

disasters have been made worse by the human interventions that preceded them, or that failed to

alleviate them afterward, and we have had more of them to see. Our society becomes more

fragmented: the haves and have-nots, the educated and the un-educated; the principle of the

circle of humankind recedes further into the distance. While international bodies now attempt to

measure PPP (purchasing power parity) and not GDP, billions (trillions?) of dollars of unpaid

work goes unmeasured, from women who produce 2/3 of the world’s food to volunteers cleaning

up a stream (Waring, M., 1988). The “true costs” of environmental damage continue to elude us:

how much of our health care dollars are spent to remedy the ill effects of a variety of chemicals

in the environment? Three hundred million dollars a year, it is estimated, is what the cost to the

health care system is as a consequence of polluted water (Environment Canada Website, n.d.).

When Dubos refers to the environment being spoiled by poisoning, this is somewhat of an

understatement. But his evocation of humans adding order and fantasy to the world rings very

true, and there are some spectacular successes in human/environment symbiosis. The scientific

management of agriculture that depended on cheap fuel, we see very clearly on this day in

human history, cannot be sustained; even in North America food prices are rising dramatically

and driving a resurgence of kitchen gardens.

It is evident that both Emmel and Dubos articulated important points of view. I think it is

safe to dismiss the idea that the Christian worldview is responsible for decimating the earth;
 5

pretty much all cultures and worldviews are now participating. And “nature knows best” is not a

reality we can live with (nor necessarily true), as Dubos points out, we do not live in the

wilderness. I would like also to look at something that both authors made reference to: the

influence of culture and cultural institutions in shaping the earth. Of course, this is true…But we

need to ask, does the presence of McDonalds ® in India reflect a cultural preference, or its

presence in many other countries around the world? Various writers have put forth the

proposition that mass consumption changed the social order – just beginning in the 60s and 70s –

I would agree with the proposition that the large scale environmental changes that are occurring

in many parts of the world are driven by the economic sphere. We have allowed the economic

sphere to make decisions that might properly belong in the sphere of culture or government; then

we have complained, because the goal is profit, that they have not borne the costs relating to the

environment. This is a complex and nuanced subject that I shall not pursue too much further, but

I would be remiss in not alluding to it.

In assessing the validity of the arguments put forth by Emmel and Dubos, we might

reflect on these words by a historian, J.R. McNeil, writing on the environmental history of the

20th century:

Modern environmental writing typically evaluates changes as either good or bad,

but it rarely reveals the criteria for judgement. I will refrain from such evaluation
in many cases, because environmental changes usually are good for some people
and bad for others, and indeed good for some species or subspecies and bad for
others. …Readers are invited to consider for themselves whether or not
Amazonian deforestation is good or bad – and urged to think: for whom? The
answer is complicated. It depends on whose interests one rates over others…on
how one evaluates the role of deforestation in producing changes in the global
atmosphere, and how one regards the prospect of global warming, on how much
one values the forms of life going extinct in Amazonia…It depends on all this and
more. (McNeil, J.R., 2000, preface)
 6

Complicated, indeed. It is quality of life that should drive our judgements, and what is best for

the greatest number of people. These cannot be measured by economic parameters – after all, the

tremendous mountain of wasted food and other valuable products in western societies stimulates

our economies, stresses agricultural land and landfills, and deprives the poorest people of the

world. Perhaps we would do better to change our criteria for judgement to gross international

happiness (GIH, n.d.)

 7

References

Environment Canada Website. Quick Facts. Retrieved June 16, 2008 from:
http://www.ec.gc.ca/WATER/en/manage/poll/e_plant.htm

Gross International Happiness Website. Main page. Retrieved June 17, 2008 from:
http://www.grossinternationalhappiness.org/

McNeil, J.R. (2000) Something new Under the Sun: an environmental history of the twentieth-
century world. New York: Norton & Company.

Thompson Rivers University. (2005) Readings File; Geography 230.

Waring, M. (1988) If Women Counted: A new feminist economics. New York: Harper Collins.

Question Two
 8

a. Heat island is a term used to describe an increased air and surface

temperature in urban areas relative to rural areas adjoining them. They form as natural

vegetation is replaced by asphalt, concrete, buildings, and other infrastructure: change

occurs in a number of ways. The shade and evapotranspiration effect of the vegetation,

which tends to cool temperatures, is lost as it is removed. The city creates a new

artificial landscape that reduces wind flow and traps heat between buildings. Heat from

combustion (cars, heating or air conditioning, industrial processes) may add to the

effect.

Heat islands can occur during the day or evening, but the greatest effect is

usually seen on calm, clear evenings 3-5 hours after sunset, as rural areas cool off

more quickly than the city which retains heat in buildings and pavement. They may be

of some benefit in the winter – reducing heating energy needs and melting snow on

roads more quickly. In summer, the increased energy needs for refrigeration and air

conditioning will add to global warming effect, and this impact is generally greater than

any benefits.

Cities vary around the world, and research is ongoing into heat islands. Urban

Atlanta reaches temperatures 5 to 8 degrees Fahrenheit higher than surrounding areas,

and research here showed that the effect caused thunder shower activity. Heated air

over the city rises and pulls in cooler air, generating convective clouds that bring rain

and thunder showers. It was estimated that 5 to 9 days of precipitation were caused by

heat islands. From 1973 to 1992, 380,000 acres of trees were lost in Atlanta, an
 9

average of 55 acres per day. This research into the heat island effect is critical; it is

estimated that by 2025 80% of the world’s population will live in cities.

Sources in addition to the course material:

EPA Website. http://www.epa.gov/hiri/about/index.html

NASA Website. http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/essd16mar_1m.htm

b. Water bodies age gradually over time as erosional materials, carried in by streams,

deposited from the air, and within the water itself, increase nutrients. This natural

eutrophication happens more quickly in lakes than streams or rivers, as the flow of

water is slower, and also in estuaries where accumulations are deposited. The increased

nutrient input causes plant and algal growth to increase, reducing the supply of oxygen

in the water shared with other organisms. As the plants die, decomposition uses more

oxygen, and continues the cycle. Deep water species may die off, as well as aerobic

bacteria.

When the process is accelerated by human activities, it is called cultural eutrophication:

raw sewage, fertilizers, sediments from increased erosion, and heat are the main

causes of this acceleration. Phosphorus and nitrogen are the primary factors thus far

identified (entering the water through several mechanisms, as indicated above.) We

have oligotrophic lakes – cold, clear nutrient-poor bodies of water – that may take

centuries to become eutrophic under natural conditions. Mesotrophic lakes are

moderately rich in nutrients, and graduate to eutrophic more quickly. Eutrophication is a

 10

process of becoming more productive, that when accelerated by humans is a super-

productive process that may have serious ramifications, such as loss of species, food

chain effects, turbidity of water, and loss of aesthetic value, possibly tourism dollars.

Impact on drinking water may be serious, and treatment may be more difficult. It may

also lead to complete destruction of an ecosystem. Curtailing the flow of nutrients – for

example by limiting fertilizer use or run-off or sewage dumping, has lead to the

reclamation of some lakes.

c. Biological concentration refers to the accumulation of toxic substances increasing as

moving upwards in the food chain. Organisms at the producer level may have low

accumulations of a particular substance, however each successive trophic level must

consume a greater mass of organisms to sustain itself, and thus will ever-greater levels

accrue. Humans (and other) at the top of the food chain will receive the greatest

accumulations. The term applies only to non-biodegradable substances, those not

metabolized or excreted.

Hagget mentions the “sordid sixteen”: the elements of the chemical table most involved

in environmental pollution. He groups these into 3 categories: the first contain carbon,

nitrogen, phosphorus etc. that might potentially form harmful compounds. Next are

elements such as uranium from radioactive pollution. The third group contains toxic

chemicals and heavy metals, chlorine and mercury as examples. This third group of

elements is pervasive: used in pesticides, insecticides, fungicides, various industrial

processes and a multitude of products. Persistent organic pollutant is increasingly the

term used to describe these substances: they are toxic and persist in the environment,
 11

accumulate in fatty organs of organisms, they are not excreted or otherwise broken

down, and if these organisms are eaten, result in biological concentration higher in

predators than prey (in eaters than eaten). The result of this concentration is that levels

of POPs not harmful at the bottom of the food chain can become massively destructive

at succeeding levels. Illness, reproductive problems, serious and fatal diseases – these

have been the consequences for humans as well as other species. From Rachel Carson’s

Silent Spring in the 60s to the routine admonishment of health professionals not to eat

more than 2 tins of canned fish per week in 2008: this is the extent to which our

technological wonderland has progressed.

d. The precautionary principle at its simplest might be construed as “look before you

leap”. This is instinctively understood by most of us; presumably a moderate amount of

caution would be a trait that is more likely to survive in the evolutionary process. If one

was wandering around in the woods and ate whatever took one’s fancy, the

consequences might prove severe, and detrimental to increasing the species. My

physician has noted that the medical principle – first, do no harm – has made her very

conservative, and she ponders whether that is truly a good thing in every instance. The

law, too, has the concept of the reasonable man – referring to what a theoretical,

reasonably prudent person might do or avoid.

There are many contemporary definitions of the precautionary principle, but let us look

at 3 that are often cited.

1. The Wingspread Association:

 12

“When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment,

precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships
are not fully established scientifically.”

2. Principle 15 from the Rio de Janeiro conference on the environment:

“In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely
applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or
irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for
postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”

3. The European Commission:

“Whether or not to invoke the Precautionary Principle is a decision exercised where

scientific information is insufficient, inconclusive, or uncertain and where there are
indications that the possible effects on the environment, or human, animal or plant
health may be potentially dangerous and inconsistent with the chosen level of
protection.”

These principles are all enunciated in the context of environmental or human health,

and state ethical responsibilities towards maintaining integrity of natural systems and

recognition of the fallibility of human understanding. The more stringent interpretation

is the reversal of proof: proponents of a new technology must show that it is without

major harm before the new technology is introduced. This has led to innumerable

arguments and counter-arguments: the precautionary principle stifles innovation; the

precautionary principle does nothing to restrain environmental degradation. Medicine

and the law and humans individually, however have not had a terrible problem in

applying the basic idea of precaution until recently: the scale and quantity and speed of

technological innovations has become staggering, and the questions surrounding many

of these innumerable.
 13

Still, the precautionary principle is one way to guide our decision-making, along with

cost-benefit and risk-benefit analysis. Ultimately, peoples and nations of the world will

have to decide all of these innumerable questions in the light of that which is most

valued.

e. A councillor in the neighbouring hamlet of Comox remarked recently that underwear

flapping on a clothesline was visual pollution (thus provoking many interesting letters to

the editor in the local press.) From the ridiculous to the tragic: the nearby Tsolum river

saw its salmon stock destroyed with the advent of mining in its watershed; the mine

was short-lived but the leaching of various minerals from the abandoned mine site still

a problem almost 50 years later. Clearly, the problem of defining environmental

pollution rests partly, at least, with a set of values.

Defining pollution may be extraordinarily complex, but it also may be rather simple:

should we be dumping toxic chemicals into the water (or water, etc.)? Where is the

person who will assert this is unreservedly good for us? What proponents of any

particular pollution process or outcome will assert is: that it provides jobs, and other

economic benefits that are so delightful that we should tolerate a little (or even a lot, if

the process stands to garner much profit) environmental degradation. And, it may, in

fact be true in any given situation that the benefits outweigh the costs (even the true

costs). The question is: should we be defining these benefits/costs in a monetized

fashion in the first place?

 14

To paraphrase MasterCard, some things are priceless: many, if not most, would define

clean air and water and arable land and liveable cities and some undisturbed wildness

as things that one cannot put a price on. But does that get us any further towards

defining pollution? Because of course developing countries have put forward the

argument that they need to tolerate a little (or a lot) of pollution in order to feed their

starving and house their destitute. The answer is provided, in democratic countries at

any rate, by the very structure of democracy: the people, through their governments,

make these decisions. Simplistic? … The principle of one person, one vote is supposed

to ensure that corporations (or environmental interest groups) do not get to influence

government too much, and that decisions will be made the reflect the best interests of

the whole of the society. Governments that were truly governing in this fashion would

consult industry and science, environmentalists and the public, with equal weight to all

perspectives, and would employ the precautionary principle. Catastrophic harm would

be avoided, potential harms would be closely monitored, and we could go back to

arguing over the visual pollution of clotheslines.