Is it possible for the Western standard of living to ever become "normal" worldwide?

We rarely say this because it’s one of those things that seems too obvious to mention: When we talk about helping Third World countries “develop” themselves, the implicit purpose, in the long run, is that they should develop and industrialize to the point where their people have all the security, prosperity, opportunities and comforts that are now enjoyed by the peoples of the modern industrialized nations of Europe, North America, and Japan.

Is such a goal even possible? What we call “development” can give a country better social and political organization, better industrial plants, better infrastructure, a healthier and better-educated populace – but it cannot increase the nation’s or the world’s supply of natural resources. Does this world have the resources to support 6 billion people at what we Americans think of as a “normal” standard of living?

Is it desireable is another good question.

BG: Does this world have the resources to support 6 billion people at what we Americans think of as a “normal” standard of living?

No, not for any significant length of time, if our “normal” standard of living continues to be as high-emissions, fossil-fuel-intensive, and garbage-generating as it is now.

However, it may well be possible that over the next several decades we can make the necessary cultural and technological changes to develop a “normal” standard of living that can be sustainably maintained by 6 billion people while still retaining many, if not quite all, of the “security, prosperity, opportunities and comforts” that you speak of.

The World3 models of the team of Meadows, Meadows and Randers (who wrote The Limits to Growth in 1972 and an updated version, Beyond the Limits to Growth, in 1992) are interesting in this context (though not uncontroversial).

Another interesting model is Redefining Progress’s “ecological footprint”, an algorithm for figuring out roughly how much of the world’s resources a given individual or society uses. According to this model, there are about “26.7 billion acres (10.8 billion hectares) of biologically productive space with world-average productivity,” meaning that the average individual has to consume less than about 4 acres’ worth of resources net.

The average Pakistani consumes about 2 acres’ worth, the average Nigerian 3.3, the average Mexican 6, the average Italian 9, the average Scandinavian over 20, and the average American 24. Clearly, according to this model, not everyone can live like the Western developed nations without serious environmental consequences and resource shortages.

Of course, the model is very incomplete; it only takes into account certain kinds of consumption and waste generation. However, if you’re just trying to get a general answer to the very broad and complicated question “could 6 billion people maintain the present lifestyle of an average Westerner indefinitely”, the short answer appears to be “no”.

Define “natural resources”. The big mistake many people make is imagining that “natural resources” are somehow used up when they are used. That isn’t true for many many resources…they are USED to make things, but they aren’t “used up”. Take steel. You use steel to make a car. Is the steel used up? No, it’s still there, and when the car is totaled the steel is recovered. And steel is something that we have virtually unlimited supplies of, relative to current demand. Steel is in a slump all over the world, we have millions of tons of excess capacity. If the world needed more steel, it would be trivial to double, triple or quadruple output, even without the construction of a single new plant.

The other thing to think of is that many of the rock bottom standard of living improvements don’t really require many resources at all, compared to what people are using currently. Do electric stoves or gas stoves consume more resources than wood cooking fires? Wood fires produce huge amounts of air pollution, they contribute to health problems, they require deforestation, they are typically not sustainable. Sure, a steel stove requires a lot of metal. But so what, we’ve got plenty of steel. How much are forests in developing countries worth? I guarantee you that a third world subsistance farmer is going to value a tree differently than a formerly third world computer consultant.

Generally, this whole line of thought pisses me off. “Let’s keep the world poor!” We’ve shown time and time again that this Malthusian logic makes no sense…wealthy countries have smaller and declining populations, unstable poverty-striken nations have growing populations. Poor people with goats, subsistance agriculture, wood cooking fires, and endemic guerilla warfare are perfectly able to destroy the natural resources of a country.

The rule of law, capitalism, wealth creation and democracy are the only long-term sustainable protectors of the environment. Poverty-stricken authoritarian dictatorships are guaranteed to destroy the environment. So even if all you cared about was the environment, you should still vote for wealth. And it also turns out that choosing wealth, technology, and democratic values also benefit the world in many many many other ways.

Anyway, even if it were true (which it isn’t) that growing wealth would harm the biosphere, exactly what are you proposing to stop it? Trade barriers? Infrastructure-destroying B-52 bombing raids? Punitive and rapacious world banking policies? A policy of encouraging lawlessness, terror and warfare in the third world? The only way for you to keep the third world masses poor is to make sure that their countries are unfair, unstable, undeveloped and undevelopable hellholes. Is that what you want? If not, what DO you want?

Lemur, whom are you arguing with? You seem to think that somewhere in this thread is a diatribe against development for the Third World, and I don’t see one. The OP just asked whether it would be environmentally sustainable in the long run to maintain the entire current world population in the current material lifestyle of the average Westerner, and I indicated why the short answer appears to be “no”.

Who’s arguing in favor of “keeping the world poor” with trade barriers or bombing raids or subsidizing Third World terrorism? And who’s arguing that poverty and instability and war don’t also damage the environment and waste resources?

The rule of law, capitalism, wealth creation and democracy are the only long-term sustainable protectors of the environment.

In the main, I happen to agree with this, but that doesn’t mean that in the near term, these institutions have yet managed to create a sustainable “wealthy” lifestyle that could be successfully shared by 6 billion people without serious environmental damage. As I noted, there is no reason why we couldn’t create such a lifestyle, given the necessary technological and cultural changes.

Sure it’s all possible, the magical technology fairy will make it happen.

That is if she doesn’t kill us all first.

I would have to say the answer seems to be yes.

What natural resources are we expecting to be limiting here?

Food production is currently more than sufficient to feed 6 billion people. In fact it’s sufficient to feed about 9 billion people. By all estimates considerable quantities of food are destroyed. By most estimates that quantity is about 25% of production. Not only that but food production per area of land is still increasing and is predicted to continue doing so. We can feed more people with less land than ever before.

Can we feed everyone at current first world standards? That’s a hard question to answer, but I would say yes. The biggest reason for the anomalously high ‘agricultural footprint’ or what have you for Americans is the use of intensively produced grain fed meat. If we removed these figures then the American foot print comes much closer to that of most other regions. Intensive meat production is inherently inefficient. However much of the world is better suited to extensive meat production. With the introduction of first world technologies to developing regions meat production efficiency on the African and Asian grasslands will increase just as they have in the US, Australia and South America. Maybe we won’t have as much grain fed beef, but the absolute quantity of beef isn’t a problem.

Energy resources may or may not be limiting depending on how you define it. If we are forced to work on an assumption that we will make no progress towards alternative energy, no increase in nuclear energy production and no increase in our technological ability to find and extract fossil fuels then it will not be possible to support 6 billion first world inhabitants. If we acknowledge that human technology marches forwards then there are no energy barriers to supporting 6 billion first world inhabitants.

So what resources do we actually see as being limiting here? I can’t actually see any.

We can assume that if 6 billion people were to be magically granted first world living standards with no time to adopt first world philosophies or new technologies then the world might have a problem. The important point is that we must also acknowledge that such a situation is unrealistic. We know that the world population is already beginning to plateau and will begin to fall within 50 years after peaking at about 9 billion. This is largely due to the increase in living standards of the developing world. If the developing world were propelled towards US standards, which is somewhat more likely than a magical transformation, then population would have fallen below 6 billion. How far it will fall we don’t know, but if first world countries are any indication we might assume a stable world population of around 3 billion, or one third more than total current first world levels. Given the lack of need for aid to developing nations and increase in technology the planet could handle that far more easily than we can handle 2 billion people in developed nations and 4 billion in developing nations.

** Kimstu**

That is a little unwarranted isn’t it? You are assuming that a person in Zaire would require as much heating fuel as a person in New York for example. You are also making the assumption that at current population densities a person in downtown Pyongyang would need to travel as far to and from work as a person in LA. Is there any basis for these assumptions? I can’t imagine that if South Korea developed into a USA clone it would be more like California than like Honshu.

The model also does not appear to make any attempt to take into account the aid provided by the developed world to the developing world. It seems to simply add the footprint of an American worker producing malaria drugs for OS distribution to the US footprint, when in fact his output is being consumed in Colombia. I do not believe that this factor is insignificant when all military, medical and food aid is totalled worldwide.

Similarly the model only assesses the footprint of a person making calculators in Mumbai for ultimate sale in the US in terms of personal consumption. This is done despite the fact that the individual and her State consumes the income from that manufacture and adds to her and the State’s standard of living. With the fluid and dynamic global economy we have now this seems rather dubious in terms of calculating environmental resource use since it seems to imply that development, particularly capital works development, has no environmental impact.

As compelling as that argument Azael is would you care to explain it?

If we are trying to predict future human achievements shouldn’t we work with the way that humans are and the way they have behaved in the past? If in the past we have advanced ever more rapidly technologically wouldn’t it make sense to assume we will continue to do so? Or do you have some reason for predicting an imminent block to technological progress?

Posted by Blake:

How do we know that? Cite?

Also posted by Blake:

Blake, it is of course inevitable that, so long as industrial civilization continues, research and development of new technologies will continue. Nevertheless, any given line of technological development might indeed run into “an imminent block,” a dead end, past which no further fundamental breakthroughs are possible. For instance, we have absolutely no reason to expect that our descendants, 500 years from now, will have learned to make a spaceship that travels faster than light. Based on what we know now, that would be flatly impossible.

In the shorter run, we have the global fuel situation to deal with. We cannot entirely rule out the possibility of inventing alternative fuels that can effectively substitute gasoline for powering motor vehicles; but what know at present gives us no reason to confidently expect that. The following is from the website of James Howard Kunstler; you can link to it at http://www.kunstler.com/mags_diary7.html.

Blake: […] food production per area of land is still increasing and is predicted to continue doing so. […] If we acknowledge that human technology marches forwards then there are no energy barriers to supporting 6 billion first world inhabitants. […] You are also making the assumption that at current population densities a person in downtown Pyongyang would need to travel as far to and from work as a person in LA.

What you are arguing is that with adequate technological and cultural adjustments, we can have a global lifestyle that is more or less equivalent in terms of material prosperity to the current lifestyle of the developed world, and we should not assume that a global “First World” lifestyle has to be exactly identical to how the average Westerner lives now.

Which is exactly what I said in both of my previous posts to this thread, so I don’t know why the heck you’re trying to argue with me.

To a conservative capitalist who believes in inexaustible natural resources, the short answer is “yes”. To any Earthling actually living in reality-land, the short answer is “no.”

It makes me laugh when environmentalists declare that the Earth has limited resources; when the Earth has evaporated, only then will we have exhausted the resources of this planet. That should be in about 10[sup]36[/sup] years.
The Sun puts out a trillion times the energy we use currently- how can you hope to exhaust that?

I do believe in technological fairies, and I studied environmental science at uni, so perhaps I am unusual in my optimism;

but it seems self evident that it is wrong to say that we could never support the current population of the earth at a western standard of living;
eventually it could be a million times better than that.

eburacum: but it seems self evident that it is wrong to say that we could never support the current population of the earth at a western standard of living

AFAICT, nobody’s saying it could never be done; I’m just commenting that given our current technology, resource use, and waste generation, it’s not sustainable over the long term. I’m kind of surprised that I’m having to repeat this so much.

I’ve lost track of how many times I’ve posted this in the last month alone.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/pop850.doc.htm

But we’re right back where we started. Do you have some reason for predicting an imminent block to technological progress? Simple question: do you have some reason for predicting an imminent block to technological progress in the field of providing for adequate living standards? We all know of the reasons for a block to maximum velocity. But you haven’t given any reasons for a block to maximum prosperity. If in the past we have advanced ever more rapidly technologically wouldn’t it make sense to assume we will continue to do so until we have some reason to challenge that assumption?

You seem to b challenging the assumption base don nothing at all.

As for the oil figures you quoted, I can but say: get thee to the oil thread of only two weeks ago wherein I debunked most of that.

You didn’t say that though. You quoted US environmental footprint and said the whole world couldn’t live at that level. You do realise that Japan is part of the first world don’t you?

I am not arguing about ‘adequate technology’. I am arguing about the invalidity of you suggesting that only the US lifestyle is first world and extrapolating exclusively from US figures. I am pointing out that for your assertion to be valid t a man in Zaire would have the same heating bill as a man in Gnome. It would require that a woman in Tokyo have the same travel habits as a woman in LA.

I note that you didn’t respond at all to m other objections concerning the validity of the model itself

What is that based on? Why isn’t it sustainable? What is the maximum food production/hectare at current technology? What is the current maximum nuclear energy generation potential from all available Uranium supplies?

It seems that you are envisioning a scenario where a Mali goatherd gets a US style house with all mod cons, but does not adopt US style agricultural practices repleat with feed supplementation etc. I short the scenario seems based on a transition in lifestyle with no concommitant transition in education, psychology or work practices.

Sorry, just addressing the OP; many people think that the Earth is a closed system. Blimey, even the Universe isn’t a closed system…

Blake: You quoted US environmental footprint and said the whole world couldn’t live at that level. You do realise that Japan is part of the first world don’t you?

Yes, as is Italy, as are the Scandinavian countries, and I quoted eco-footprints for them too, which (although they are indeed smaller than the US value) are still larger than the model’s figure for a “sustainable” footprint.

I am not arguing about ‘adequate technology’. I am arguing about the invalidity of you suggesting that only the US lifestyle is first world and extrapolating exclusively from US figures.

Which it is clear from my first post that I am not in fact doing, since I did talk about the figures for other First World countries as well.

I am pointing out that for your assertion to be valid t a man in Zaire would have the same heating bill as a man in Gnome. It would require that a woman in Tokyo have the same travel habits as a woman in LA.

Which indeed (as I keep saying) is not a necessary assumption. We could very likely create a more-or-less “First World” standard of material comfort that does not exactly replicate, culturally or technologically, the average Westerner’s current material existence, and would be globally sustainable. Now, how many times am I going to have to keep repeating this?

I note that you didn’t respond at all to m other objections concerning the validity of the model itself

Because I already pointed out in my very first post that the model is in many ways inadequate! You are busily attacking positions that I am not in fact defending. Sheesh.

I for one think it’s important to seperate ‘lifestyle’ from ‘resource consumption’. It is perfectly reasonable to expect that everyone on earth can enjoy a standard of living comparable to the average citizen of the western world. Is this doable using just any old method? No, of course not. But does it make a difference if the car you drive is say, hydrogen powered or powered by gas from converted biomass and made from 99 percent recycled material? Not if it get’s your kid’s to the soccer game on time. Does it matter if that burger you eat was bio-engineered, vat grown or even soy based as long as you can still upsize it for an additional 40 cents? ;> Will living space be an issue when world population is declining steadily due to lower birthrates as is observed in today’s prosperous nations? In my opinion it is much easier to adapt PRODUCTS to be responsible and available than it is to try to get people to change their lifestyle to something that is less convenient and pleasurable.

cite?