Jane Goodall

Went to a public lecture by Jane Goodall last night. The arena was packed.  She and members of her institute have found a type of formula for combining conservation and economic growth.  At some point she realized that you can’t sell conservation in a vacuum.  People who live near fragile preserves like Gombe have to make a living.  They need food and firewood. 

Human population pressures also threaten the shrinking wildlife preserves all over the world and in Africa in particular. One way to encourage lower population growth is to look after public health and, in particular, the welfare of women. They’ve noticed that families naturally tend to have fewer babies when infant mortality rates lower. Lower mortality rates can be achieved through the application of very fundamental improvements in hygiene and health care.

One of the critical approaches they are taking in Africa is to improve the life of women through micro loans.  This has proven effective in many other parts of the world and Goodall reports it is having a beneficial effect in Africa as well.

As I sat and listened to the lecture, I was overcome with the futility of our ever increasing consumerism.  Take our collective response to the increasing scarcity of petroleum.   The big ideas seem to involve finding new ways to sustain high consumption- e.g., the replacement of petroleum with ethanol or hydrogen.  The idea that we might have to throttle back our per capita consumption of stuff extracted from the ground is ignored.

Well, of course the national stage isn’t filled with people promoting reduced consumption.  There is no money in reducing demand. Who wants to hear that? 

Minimally, the USA must go the way of Europe in terms of lower average consumption.  Higher population density combined with higher priced energy will lead to more modest consumption of goods due to lifestyles adjusting to scarcity. 

2 thoughts on “Jane Goodall

  1. John Spevacek

    Clearly population control is critical to any solution of the worldwide environmental problems. There are 6 billion people on this planet and they all want the same lifestyle that we have. Rightfully so. The real question is this: Can the planet sustain it for that many people? You are concluding no. I’m more of inclined to wait-and-see. Certainly the world economic situation will change. As one example, gas demand will continue to increase at a significant rate and prices will correlate. However, when a high enough price is maintained for a long time, investments will be made into alternatives. (No one will invest $1billion for a synfuel plant or such when the price of a barrel is always going upand down as much as it has this past year. )

    Economies can handle slow changes quite well. It’s the sudden impacts that are awful.

    Reply
  2. gaussling Post author

    Hi John, I’m not sure I’m concluding “no”, actually. The world can sustain many more people. I would like to see our civilization begin to be smarter about consumption. It is the difference between can and should. Our ethical growth is lagging our technical growth in many areas and the grownups need to stop and think about it.

    Reply

Leave a comment