Seen in isolation, events such as the financial-market crises, the uprisings in the Middle East, world colonisation by China, the Somali famine and climate change regularly evoke cries of bewilderment.
To me, however, the news headlines of recent times are all interconnected, in that they are merely following the Earth’s natural rhythm. These events can be explained by the definition of ecology, according to which there is constant interaction between living (or biotic) organisms and their immediate non-living (abiotic) environment; and by ecological principles such as the survival of species, Liebig’s law of the minimum, r and K-strategists and interaction between organisms.
Own species first
The strongest driving force of any organism — be it bacteria, elephant or human — is to ensure the survival of its own species. When a species has depleted the resources in its region, it moves into other territories to find sufficient resources.
The minimum determines the maximum
Liebig’s law of the minimum states that the availability of the resource that occurs in the smallest amount ultimately determines the number of organisms in an ecosystem. Take, for example, the build-up of algae in a dam that contains a considerable amount of carbon but only a small amount of phosphate. In such a case, it is ultimately the concentration of phosphate that determines how much algae (biomass) is produced.
When the phosphate sources become depleted — even if a considerable amount of carbon is still available — algae production simply ceases. The availability of resources such as water, nutrients and minerals, which all occur in limited amounts, will determine how many people can live within the Earth’s ecosystem. The question is whether the world population of 7 billion people (as of 31 October 2011) has not already reached or surpassed the carrying capacity of the earth system as dictated by the level of the most limiting resource.
According to the 2010 State of the World Report, 10 ha of land are necessary for every American to sustain the United States’ average annual income per person of $45 000. It further reports that, if every person on Earth were to pursue an American lifestyle, we would need resources equivalent to 4.5 Earths.
It estimates that if the world population, without further growth, just maintained its current rate of resource consumption, only 1.2 billion people would be living on Earth in 100 years’ time. It is clear that our current consumption rates have already reached the critical restricted level and that the survival of humankind is under threat. The unprecedented poverty of 2 billion people living below the breadline shows that the Earth’s resources can no longer support the current world population.
Opportunists versus adaptors
Let us look at what happens in ecosystems under restrictive conditions on the basis of the comparison of population growth, where ‘r’ represents the per capita growth of a population and ‘K’ represents the environment’s capacity to sustain that population.
Microbiologists use this logistical comparison to classify bacterial communities as r-strategists and K-strategists according to their ability to survive under various environmental conditions. The former are typically rapidly-growing and opportunistic organisms that dominate ecosystems in times of abundance but disappear equally rapidly when resources deplete.
K-strategists grow more slowly and are highly adaptable; they survive well and dominate under difficult environmental conditions. Countries can also be classified according to their growth rate, per capita income and water and energy consumption.
The United States, China, Japan and developed countries of the European Union act as typical r-strategists, while the BRICS countries — excluding China — and other developing countries are more like K-strategists. Because of intense consumption, the resources of r-strategist countries are shrinking rapidly.
We can therefore expect that the survival of the five biggest economies in the world (United States, China, Japan, France and Germany) as well as of closely aligned countries such as Greece, Portugal, Italy, Ireland and Spain will be the first to come under pressure. The economic collapse and political instability of the past few years typically reflects the reaction of r-strategist countries under such conditions.
The r-strategists have the advantage that they have the means to move — like nomads — to new habitats with sufficient resources. The Chinese colonisation movement is typical of this. It also enables the r-strategists, should they wish, to take the resources they need by force.
The involvement of the United States — the world’s Number One r-strategist– in wars against oil-rich countries is therefore predictable: oil supports mobility and mobility ensures survival. The net effect is that the world is becoming increasingly unstable and that the most powerful countries, according to the principle of survival of the fittest, will survive.
The stability of an ecosystem is determined by various interactions between organisms. In stable ecosystems, sufficient resources and suitable environmental conditions sustain a variety of organisms. When these ecosystems come under pressure, however, species variety decreases, since natural selection always benefits organisms that can withstand prevailing pressures and changing environmental conditions.
Interaction is the determining factor
A symbiotic relationship is a win-win situation for all the organisms involved. Switzerland and the Scandinavian countries boast such equilibrium. Symbiosis, however, is not sustainable in countries or in ecosystems with limited resources. Commensal relationships, which are typical of capitalist systems where r-strategist and K-strategist countries occur together, benefit one organism but not necessarily at the expense of another.
These relationships remain stable if there are enough resources for both groups. This relationship often turns antagonistic and hostile when resources become depleted, since the über-consuming r-strategists will do everything possible to ensure their own survival first and foremost.
Future scenario
Ecosystems are fluid and dynamic because of the constant interplay between organisms and continuously changing environmental conditions with limited resources. Therefore communities wax and wane and, in extreme cases, entire species die out. Let me use the ecological principles that govern ecosystem functioning to cast some light on world events:
- The r-strategist countries already exceed their capacity to sustain their consumption levels. This leads to instability and to these nations’ heightened antagonism (wars) against environments (other countries) with the resources that these nations want.
- In many countries, resource shortages are leading to poverty, famine, the outbreak of epidemics and, ultimately, the dying out of parts of the population.
- An equilibrium (or stability) will be reached only when resource usage is in balance with world population. Particularly the citizens of the r-strategist countries will have to decrease their consumption drastically and learn to live according to available resources. The alternative is that population numbers will drop dramatically, as is typical of an ecosystem under pressure.
- We can therefore expect wars, poverty and diseases such as HIV/Aids, malaria and tuberculosis to increase. The additional complications caused by climate change can drive population numbers ever downward and — in extreme cases — can result in extinction.
- Escape from this scenario is unlikely, since humankind is basically the ‘victim’ of its own choices and of the dynamics of the Earth’s ecosystem. Humans, as an important biotic component, have a significant impact due to our unsustainable patterns of consumption and pollution.
Humankind has the ability to create a sustainable future and to live within the Earth’s natural carrying capacity. People and countries that are adaptable enough to live within their means have a better chance of survival. Here, science and technology can make a large contribution.
The question, however, remains: Does humankind have the will to make an essential change?
Prof Eugene Cloete is dean of the faculty of science at Stellenbosch University and chairperson of the Stellenbosch University Water Institute, an initiative of the HOPE Project, through which the university makes science work to the benefit of society.
For the latest COP17 news and special features view our special report.