The biological growth imperative and the radical unsustainability of civilisation as we know it

[UndercoverElephant]

A fundamental property of living things is a natural tendency to grow and expand – to increase in size, reproduce, to occupy more space and consume more resources. This process is competitive, and a fundamental part of evolution and ecology. Its flipside is death – the only way it is possible for new organisms and new species to flourish is for other organisms – the old, the weak and those which fail in the grand competition of life – to die. I will call this tendency “the biological growth imperative”.

Much more rarely in the history of life, something else happens – co-operation of individual organisms to make a (relative) super-organism.

The first time this happened was when the individual micro-organisms that were the ancestors of cell organelles first got together to produce a eukaryotic cell (a cell with a nucleus). In order to do this each of the organelles had to give up its individual adherence to the growth imperative – they had to stop growing or reproducing, unless instructed to do so by genetic processes in the nucleus (ie when the whole cell was ready to divide).

It happened again when multicellular organisms first appeared. Multi-cellular organisms are effectively a colony of single cells, each with exactly the same set of DNA instructions, even though there are a great many different types of cell with a wide variety of purposes. That this ever managed to happen at all is an example of the mind-boggling power of evolution by natural selection. Again, the biggest obstacle to creating a multi-cellular organism was the biological drive to grow. The fact that these cells manage to stop dividing is an extraordinary feat of biological engineering: every single cell in a complex multi-celled organism is descended from an unbroken series of cells stretching right back to the first single celled organisms, every one of which divided, and yet somehow it “knows” that it must specialise and then stop dividing. The complexity of this process of halting the biological growth imperative is revealed by the plethora of ways it can malfunction, whenever the cell “forgets” its instruction to stop dividing and cell division starts again. Each of the different ways this can happen is a different type of cancer.

The next major layer of complexity occurred in insects, initially in termites about 150 mya, but it has happened in the hymenoptera (ants, bees and wasps) at least eight times since then. This took co-operative evolution to the next step. Each cell in an insect is a collaboration of bacteria-like sub-organisms. Each insect is a collaboration of genetically identical but morphologically different cells. A colony of eusocial insects is a collaboration of individual insects that functions as a “super-organism”. In order to achieve this, the eusocial insects had to change their genetics so that each individual insect which labours away in the interests of the colony is labouring on behalf of its own genes, even though the workers don't get to reproduce. Only the queen and the drones (males who serve no other purpose than to compete to pass on their genes) do that. So again we have an example of an additional layer of biological co-operation, which was only made possible by the individual units that comprise the super-organism giving up their biological growth imperative.

Something similar happened in some social mammals, such as wolves. Wolf packs are led by a dominant pair, and they are the only ones who reproduce. All the other members of the pack then help to raise their young. The system would not work if all the other individuals followed the biological growth imperative, so they must not have any right to reproduce.

Now compare to humans. Civilisation is another example of individual organisms getting together to make what is effectively a super-organism. At first these super-organisms were temple/city states, the they were empires, and now they are sovereign states. But there's something wrong. In this case we have NOT found a way to control the biological growth imperative. We haven't done so at the level of global mega-civilisation - the history of human civilisation is the history of war between different groups over territory and access to resources. It is happening right now in Ukraine. But we haven't done so at the level of internal socio-economic organisation either. In the temple/city state model, individual humans were encouraged to reproduce in order to provide military manpower – the growth imperative was either satisfied by territorial expansion at the expense of neighbouring groups, or offset by death in warfare, famine and disease. In the feudal system that replaced it something similar applied – feudal estates had to supply soldiers, and if that didn't keep the population under control then localised famine did (there was no global trade, and feudal estates were supposed to be self-sufficient).

And in the modern world of science and capitalism, we have completely failed to control the growth imperative. Instead, we've created an economic system which celebrates and encourages it. Nobody is allowed to question the desirability of growth, whether it is in terms of population or GDP. Each individual human is encouraged to consume more, even though many of the poorest don't have enough. Control of human numbers is taboo – even among “progressive” people, it is denounced as “eco-fascism”. And while we are willing to call for a reduction in the consumption levels of the super-rich, it is assumed by everybody that our goal is for all humans – at current population levels or higher – have a right to enough resources to enable them to reproduce at will.

It seems to me that our most fundamental problem is a profound psychological, political and cultural unwillingness to admit the reality of this situation, which is that in order to actually make civilisation work – to make it ecologically sustainable and therefore a viable long-term “super-organism” – we are going to have to find a way to control the biological growth imperative. The problem is that there is no way to do this which does not conflict with what we consider to be individual human rights. We either have to restrict people's right to reproduce, or we have to restrict their right to expand their personal territory (ie buy land) and consume resources. At the moment neither of these options is considered politically acceptable and that applies not just in the West but to pretty much the whole world.

[UndercoverElephant]

Ha! This post just got me permabanned from /r/sustainability. Apparently overpopulation isn't a scientific issue, and discussion of it leads to ecofascism!

[Potemkin Villager]

I am not sure whether to offer congratulations or commiserations! Can you discover the identity of the banner or do they have anonymity whilst knowing who you are? The Reddit functionaries seem very smugly Orwellian.

Didn't China once have a single child policy to facilitate economic growth which initially seemed to allow them to have their cake and eat it to?

[Default0ptions]

Ha! This post just got me permabanned from /r/sustainability. Apparently overpopulation isn't a scientific issue, and discussion of it leads to ecofascism!

How ridiculous! It’s a very pertinent point.

Overpopulation is, however, one of those issues subject to hard limits. If you’ve got more population than the land can sustain, death by starvation will cull the population down to a sustainable level.

If the population themselves fail to address the problem in a rational manner, nature solves it anyway.

[Vortex2]

"The text outlines the concept of the "biological growth imperative," the natural tendency among living organisms to grow, reproduce, and consume resources. This imperative is intrinsic to life and evolution but comes with the consequence of death for those who cannot compete. However, in certain instances—such as the formation of eukaryotic cells, multicellular organisms, and eusocial insects—biological entities have circumvented this imperative through cooperation to form "super-organisms."

The text argues that human civilization represents another form of super-organism, but one that has yet to effectively control the biological growth imperative. In the past, population growth was managed through territorial expansion, warfare, famine, and disease. However, modern socio-economic systems, particularly under capitalism, not only fail to restrain this imperative but actively encourage it. This has led to a failure to create an ecologically sustainable civilization.

The crux of the issue, according to the text, is a tension between the need to control the biological growth imperative and the concept of individual human rights, particularly the rights to reproduce and consume resources. The text suggests that our inability to resolve this tension represents a critical, global obstacle to sustainability." ChatGPT

[Default0ptions]

Thank you ChatGTP!

I think that we are far more slaves to our DNA’s single purpose to perpetuate itself than we dare to admit. We attempt to assign rational reasons after the fact for actions that our emotions have forced upon us; and our emotions are the way our DNA asserts its objectives.

Anyone else had teenage sons and daughters? The little so and sos are at it like rabbits before they’re even remotely ready to deal with the consequences!

[UndercoverElephant]

"The text outlines the concept of the "biological growth imperative," the natural tendency among living organisms to grow, reproduce, and consume resources. This imperative is intrinsic to life and evolution but comes with the consequence of death for those who cannot compete. However, in certain instances—such as the formation of eukaryotic cells, multicellular organisms, and eusocial insects—biological entities have circumvented this imperative through cooperation to form "super-organisms."

The text argues that human civilization represents another form of super-organism, but one that has yet to effectively control the biological growth imperative. In the past, population growth was managed through territorial expansion, warfare, famine, and disease. However, modern socio-economic systems, particularly under capitalism, not only fail to restrain this imperative but actively encourage it. This has led to a failure to create an ecologically sustainable civilization.

The crux of the issue, according to the text, is a tension between the need to control the biological growth imperative and the concept of individual human rights, particularly the rights to reproduce and consume resources. The text suggests that our inability to resolve this tension represents a critical, global obstacle to sustainability." ChatGPT

Exactly. I don't think there is a more succinct way to identify the central predicament of the current version of civilisation. Ultimately I am also claiming that the reason we cannot resolve the tension is because of a philosophical failure explained in other recent threads. It's not six of one and half a dozen of the other. The problem is that far too many people, when confronted with the tension, fail to prioritise the objective truth. We cannot reach agreed answers about human rights unless we can agree about what the questions ought to be, and we can't agree on the questions unless we can agree on the status of scientific knowledge. The Big Lie is that the tension cannot be resolved. It can be, and I believe it eventually will be. Unfortunately, it is going to take some very hard lessons in what happens if an entire civilisation bases itself on the denial of reality.

[johnny]

Ha! This post just got me permabanned from /r/sustainability. Apparently overpopulation isn't a scientific issue, and discussion of it leads to ecofascism!

Welcome to the club of "knowing cool stuff that amateurs don't and they ban you for it" club.

[Vortex2]

Ha! This post just got me permabanned from /r/sustainability. Apparently overpopulation isn't a scientific issue, and discussion of it leads to ecofascism!

All the best people have at least one Reddit permaban!

[Vortex2]

Ha! This post just got me permabanned from /r/sustainability. Apparently overpopulation isn't a scientific issue, and discussion of it leads to ecofascism!

All the best people have at least one Reddit permaban!

Heck .. I have just been banned from yet another Reddit sub ...

[johnny]

Ha! This post just got me permabanned from /r/sustainability. Apparently overpopulation isn't a scientific issue, and discussion of it leads to ecofascism!

All the best people have at least one Reddit permaban!

Heck .. I have just been banned from yet another Reddit sub ...

I just received a warning on reddit for being mean to somebody. I asked them to define "conventional oil" when they claimed it was something terribly special. Even offered them links to information sources to point them out to me...if they could.
Can't even be helpful in today's politically correct world without offending someone.

I'm not even sure the newbies have even heard of MZBs, or are interested in stopping them with homemade claymore mines, or even good ol' fashioned guns and ammo, and are unfamiliar with the horrors they would inflict on the survivors in the countryside when peak oil happened. In 2002. Or 2005. Or 2006. Or 2008. Or 2015. Or 2018. Whatever...pick your own number at this point. But still...they know NOTHING about the history of the topic! Or growing tomatoes in window planters to ward off starvation when peak oil arrives! And then they are mad at those who do! Dunno.....

[Potemkin Villager]

Poor old you, it must be such a burden being so all knowing and omnipotent.

[mr brightside]

Interesting item on t' Look North news last night, which most on there won't have seen, about a theatre production powered by people furiously pedalling bikes connected to alternators. One guy described civilisation's current state as an "extinction event", a comment that will have no doubt gone in one ear and out the other.

[Vortex2]

Can't even be helpful in today's politically correct world without offending someone.

My two bans were caused by the same thing ... suggesting that men are not in fact responsible for 100% of the world's ills.

Only to be expected : the typical age on Reddit is early 20s ... peak woke age.

[kenneal - lagger]

I don't think that population growth is an ongoing problem. Most countries of the world have a population that is not reaching the replacement rate any more and the reason that their population is still increasing is a demographic bulge that will work its way through so that by 2050 the world population will be reducing.

The problem is that we have invented an economic system which requires perpetual growth to function. We also have a small proportion of the population who don't know when they have enough and so require their wealth to grow indefinitely. These sociopaths, psychopaths, call then what you want, unfortunately have an inordinate amount of political power and can influence government policy worldwide to ensure that a policy of continual economic growth is adhered to.

The problem of a falling population in the developed world has been solved by migration from poorer countries to keep population, and hence economic growth, rising. All political parties are pro growth in both economic terms and population. Some parties, the Tories for instance, will choose a small part of immigration to criticise, boat people, while quietly encouraging immigration from other sources as they know that a rising population is necessary to boost growth. Other political parties will choose to support immigration on "humanitarian" grounds so that all migrants become refugees so that they can tug at our heart strings to ensure that the population rises. The havoc that these economic migrants cause to the indigenous working class is politely ignored or called "right wing" or "fascist" to keep any subsequent unrest under the carpet and out of sight.

What will happen when the world population starts to reduce after 2050, I do not know. Any country that has a falling population will become an economic basket case while the rich countries will continue to pull in migrants from those poorer countries. Whether the basket cases can be contained or not will be the big question as they are likely to become terrorist breeding grounds full of poor, discontented people. The rich countries will put the blame for the discontent and unrest at the door of the poor countries, of course, to deflect their own population's attention away from the true cause, the greed of the few in charge.

That is, if the world economic system makes it through to 2050.