“The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function.”
By Dave Newport
Professor Albert P. Bartlett is one of those
few. He sets the bar on inspiration—and at the same time has never retreated
from exposing the biggest elephant in sustainability’s room, probably the
biggest challenge civilization ultimately faces: overpopulation.
Ugh. I hate this issue. It dwarfs climate
change in scale, complexity, and apparent inevitability. I hate this issue—but
I love Al Bartlett. He’s huge.
Maybe tackling such a big issue requires a
big person. Well, Professor Bartlett, a nuclear physicist, is a towering man in
every way: height, physical stature, vice-grip handshake even at age 90, large
personality matched to an incredibly warm heart, prodigious intellect, and an
enormous lifelong body of work.
Interestingly, while Professor Bartlett is passionate about the
perils of overpopulation,
He is in a class of brilliance, prescience and greatness alongside more well-known canaries in the coal mine such as Donella Meadows, Garret Hardin, Rachel Carson, and Paul Erlich. Focused on similar systems, Professor
Albert Allen Bartlett has tirelessly championed an approach to
sustainability that is mindful of the relentless truth of mathematics; that is,
the exponential function is oft ignored but never stops being true.
Within that simple mathematical relationship a predictive
model of population growth, community development, and resource impacts is logically
derived. Sustainabilistas, resiliency advocates, environmentalists, politicians,
permaculturists and policy people from every sphere cannot ignore that
function. Math never stops.
He illustrates and explains the math behind the hockey stick population growth graph in
compelling ways. We lull ourselves into complacency by forgetting what we learned in Algebra 101. Professor Bartlett makes it vivid and explicable.
For instance, he asks us to imagine an empty soda bottle to which we add one bacteria cell at the top of the hour. If that bacteria divided in two once every minute thus doubling the number bacteria in the bottle, by the 59th minute of the hour the bottle would be only half full. But in the 60th minute all those cells would double again and, presto, full bottle.
We forget these simple math truths at our own peril. By the way, we are in peril. It's called overshoot and collapse. In nature, populations that grow at these rates consume all their food and/or pollute their surroundings so much they become toxic. We're doing both pretty well. The 1970s book Limits to Growth predicted human civilization would hit this wall around the year 2050. A recent check in on that famous study found us to be more or less on the predicted trajectory.
He illustrates and explains the math behind the hockey stick population growth graph in
For instance, he asks us to imagine an empty soda bottle to which we add one bacteria cell at the top of the hour. If that bacteria divided in two once every minute thus doubling the number bacteria in the bottle, by the 59th minute of the hour the bottle would be only half full. But in the 60th minute all those cells would double again and, presto, full bottle.
We forget these simple math truths at our own peril. By the way, we are in peril. It's called overshoot and collapse. In nature, populations that grow at these rates consume all their food and/or pollute their surroundings so much they become toxic. We're doing both pretty well. The 1970s book Limits to Growth predicted human civilization would hit this wall around the year 2050. A recent check in on that famous study found us to be more or less on the predicted trajectory.
Professor Bartlett has given his now famous
lecture on this subject to congressmen, senators, economists, citizens, experts
and students of every stripe over
1,742 times from Alaska to Saudi Arabia since he first spoke it in 1969—and
one of many videos of his presentation has been viewed
on You Tube nearly 5-million times.
Yes, his large countenance includes being
outspoken too. Great people many times are.
“The
greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the
exponential function.”
That is his
signature quote. Wow.
Likewise, he broke
down the population challenge into simple but loaded questions such as:
“Can you
think of any problem in any area of human endeavor on any scale, from
microscopic to global, whose long-term solution is in any demonstrable way
aided, assisted, or advanced by further increases in population, locally,
nationally, or globally?”
Nope. Can’t think
of one.
He carves up sustainability development’s
ability to neutralize the effects of this inexorable population arithmetic. He
offers his own First
Law of Sustainability relative to systems in a finite environment (e.g.
Earth):
“Population
growth and/or growth in the rates of consumption of resources cannot be
sustained.”
Professor Bartlett defends this law as
follows:
“The First Law is based on arithmetic so it is absolute. Science
is not democratic, so the First Law of Sustainability is not debatable; it
cannot be modified or repealed by professional societies, by congresses or by
parliaments. The First Law implies that the term “Sustainable Growth” is an
oxymoron. This is true when this term is used by an untutored person on the
street, by an economics professor, or by the President of the United States.”
Then he points out a fundamental defect in Bruntland’s
definition of sustainable development (…“meet
the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations
to meet their own needs”). He writes:
“Unfortunately, the Brundtland definition contains a flaw. It
focuses first on the needs of the present, which have nothing to do with
sustainability, and secondarily it mentions the needs of future generations
that are vital for sustainability. This sets the stage for intergenerational
conflict in which the present generation wins and future generations lose. We
need to rephrase the Brundtland definition as follows:
Sustainable
development is development that does not compromise the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs.”
Indeed, Professor Bartlett’s revised
definition of sustainability indeed presents us with a much more daunting path,
one that requires significant population reduction alongside resource
conservation. Instinctively, we know all this to be true. The math, as he likes
to say, “is not debatable.”
We can groan and roll our eyes about this unrelenting math. We can say "don't give me a problem I can't solve." We can resign ourselves to a seemingly inevitable fall with "the planet will be fine, it will survive us." We can go have a beer or two and relax into a self induced stupor. Been there, done all those things. I am as frail as any on this one.
We can also continue to educate of these dynamics. That's what Professor Bartlett told a reporter only yesterday [Aug.2] from his bed. I re-read his papers recently and he points out that those of us in the carbon-emissions abatement business can buy a heck of a lot more carbon reductions with a family planning budget than with an energy conservation budget. And he reminds the major environmental groups they are almost totally absent on this issue. Perhaps reluctant to mix the potent religious issue of contraception with also controversial environmental policy, the Sierra Club et al are basically no-shows on the biggest issue facing civilization as we know it. Let's at least talk about this, he exhorts.
We can groan and roll our eyes about this unrelenting math. We can say "don't give me a problem I can't solve." We can resign ourselves to a seemingly inevitable fall with "the planet will be fine, it will survive us." We can go have a beer or two and relax into a self induced stupor. Been there, done all those things. I am as frail as any on this one.
We can also continue to educate of these dynamics. That's what Professor Bartlett told a reporter only yesterday [Aug.2] from his bed. I re-read his papers recently and he points out that those of us in the carbon-emissions abatement business can buy a heck of a lot more carbon reductions with a family planning budget than with an energy conservation budget. And he reminds the major environmental groups they are almost totally absent on this issue. Perhaps reluctant to mix the potent religious issue of contraception with also controversial environmental policy, the Sierra Club et al are basically no-shows on the biggest issue facing civilization as we know it. Let's at least talk about this, he exhorts.
Boulder was lucky to have landed him in 1950 when he and his late wife loaded up the car in Cambridge after he received his Harvard PhD—and drove here to begin his faculty career. He raised his family here and helped shape this university, this state, and what we all need to think about.
Despite what could be a depressing message, Professor
Bartlett’s fifty-plus years on the faculty served to inspire thousands
of students, staff, and community members. His warmth and passion makes him
among the most respected and loved people in our community. His impact in the
community has helped make Boulder among the most livable places in the world.
Professor Bartlett usually attended our twice yearly “sustainability roundtables” where we talked through our ongoing campus sustainability efforts. I always asked him to close our meetings with a “benediction” of sorts and he cheerfully did so. He would add some unique and interesting perspective to our work—and then like the loving and devoted father he was, he would gently remind us of the arithmetic we must reconcile.
Daunting message aside, Al Bartlett is a
compassionate and loving human being who dedicated his life to making the
planet a better place. If somebody wrote that in any obituary, it would be
the greatest complement to hope for.
Now, Professor Bartlett’s life is coming to a
close. A lymphoma thought to have been beaten five years ago is, in
his words, “back with a vengeance.” The oncologist “gave me approximately
30 days, plus or minus.” That was on July 19th, 2013. As he summed
it up that day: “well, that’s it.”
I will miss him deeply in my soul but am
happy he will soon rejoin Eleanor, his wife of 62 years. He’s home being
cared for by his daughters and Hospice. His brain is sharp and will be to the
end. May he rest in peace. He's earned that.
Well, that’s it.
-30-
Coda: Professor Bartlett died on September 7, 2013 in his Boulder, Colorado home where he lived for over 60 years. He was lovingly attended to by his daughters in his final days. He was 91. He was preceded in death by his wife, Eleanor, and is survived by their four daughters—Carol, Jane, Lois and Nancy. A memorial service was held on the CU campus in October and attended by over 400 of his friends and families.
