Woolly thinking on migration, aid and our common future

In 2016 the US journalist Thomas Friedman wrote a pair of articles, published in the New York Times, called “Out of Africa”. He describes a visit to a village in the far northwest of Senegal, worth the trek, he says, “if you’re looking for the headwaters of the immigration flood now flowing from Africa to Europe via Libya.” In this village he finds almost no young or middle-aged men; instead they have left for Europe, in search of opportunity. According to Friedman “the village’s climate-hammered farmlands can no longer sustain them, and with so many kids — 42 percent of Senegal’s population is under 14 years old — there are too many mouths to feed from the declining yields.” This scene is repeated right across the Sahel, including Niger, which has a total fertility rate of over 7.

Supporters of Sustainable Population Australia are unlikely to need much convincing that the human carrying capacity of much of northern Africa has been exceeded. In 2002 I co-authored a paper for a conference of the International Union for the Scientific Study of Population which argued that human carrying capacity can be conceptualised as an emergent property of five kinds of capital: human, social, natural, physical and financial. Applying this analysis to sub-Saharan Africa, it is clear that its natural capital (e.g. the capacity of its soil, water, climate and human ingenuity to grow food) is not keeping pace with population growth. Nor is its infrastructure (physical capital). At the same time, word of mouth, mobile phones, and the internet provide hope to many of its people that migration to Europe might provide the means not only for a better life to those who can escape, but a means to send some money home (remittances) enabling the import of food and other means to keep life tolerable, for those for stay behind. Staying behind makes sense for the frail, old and young, who not only avoid the arduous and dangerous journey to Europe, but will not need to be housed and fed in a foreign and strange land.

The vectors that drive migration are most commonly analysed as “push” and “pull”. These are surely not hard to comprehend by non-Indigenous Australians, all of whom are descendants of people who arrived more or less yesterday, compared to the time our earliest ancestors left Africa, perhaps 100,000 years ago. But, in addition to these factors, there are two more, which I termed “glue” and “fend” (deterrence) in a report I contributed to in 2005, commissioned by the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Australian Medical Association. For “fend” one only has to think of the hard line approach of Peter Dutton, President Trump and in other countries such as Hungary.

But the “glue” factor seems less well understood, including in Australia. But it is surely not hard to understand. I am very happy to be an Australian living here, where my mother tongue is understood, I am familiar with the culture, and I have the means for a reasonable life, including a sense of safety. Having lived overseas for 5 years, I know that what Australia can offer me, is, in general, at least as good as anywhere on Earth. Of those 5 years, about a year has been in Asia, including in many rural areas. I know that not every Asian seeks to migrate; they are tied to their homeland by memory, affection, culture and economy.

However, looking forward, in the context of still rising population growth, sea level rise, and other manifestations of adverse environmental change it is easy to conceive how push and pull will loosen glue, in many parts of the Asia Pacific, as is already evident in much of Africa. For many Rohingya (a persecuted Muslim minority largely in Myanmar) this has already happened.

I have met Philip Ruddock (a former Australian minister for migration) at three events organised by recent migrants to Australia. The last time I saw him he told me foreign aid from Australian was a luxury we cannot afford. In the context of intractable budget deficits (significantly due to the immorality of multinational corporations, Australia’s richest people and their tax lawyers) the position of the Liberal National coalition is that aid is a form of bad debt, an indulgent consumption. In response, I argued that aid was a glue and stability enhancing investment that would enhance global and Australian quality of life. But he gave no hint that he understood.

Sarah Hanson-Young, until recently the Greens spokesperson for migration, has repeatedly criticised Australia’s cruel, duplicitous, expensive, and unaccountable policy of deterrence (fend) to asylum-seeking but she too, to my knowledge, has never been reported the need to enhance the glue dimension to migration.[1]

In the late 1970s I decided to study medicine, primarily to try to improve health in the South, then called the Third World. 1989 I co-founded the non-government organisations BODHI and BODHI Australia, now two of the oldest Buddhist-influenced aid organisations based outside Asia. BODHI’s primary goal can be condensed to an attempt to enhance glue and to reduce push, pull and fend.

The arguments made here have been more or less clear to me since a long conversation in 1990 with Dr Maurice King, chief populariser of the concept of “demographic entrapment”. I won the 2001  Borrie Prize (awarded in 2002) by the Australian Population Association (APA) for a long essay that traced the rise and fall of Malthusian thinking within demography. This was an adaptation of the second chapter of my doctoral thesis (Inequality and Sustainability), which was supervised by Professor JC (Jack) Caldwell, a co-recipient of the 2004 UN Population Prize.

Despite winning the Borrie Prize, my resultant article was then rejected by a series of demographic journals, include the Journal of Population Research (the APA journal), the Population and Development Review and at least five more. Today, despite having published at least 50 articles, chapters and reports of relevance to global population dynamics, I have not yet been published in a primarily demographic journal. I share Maurice King’s opinion that mainstream demography has been corrupted by neoliberal forces who deny limits to growth, not only physical but social.

It is clear that Australian political elites have given up on global “health and wealth for all”, despite ostensibly supporting the Sustainable Development Goals, which will be a mirage if business as usual continue. It is not only shameful but stupid that Australia has thumbed its nose at the Pearson Commission target for overseas aid. Our approach of miserly aid, rampant fend (the funding of which probably now exceeds that for aid) is sewing the seed for future misery, both here and abroad.

About the author

In 2002 Colin Butler was commissioned by the late Frank Fenner, of the Australian Academy of Science, to write a report on Australian carrying capacity. In 2013 the Australian Academy of Science published a chapter in which he argued that the Australian population must be substantially increased, even though this would reduce the Australian quality of life, given the global demographic pressure. However, he argued, this must be accompanied by much greater engagement in the struggle for global development.

---

[1] I have tried to contact her about this issue, with no response to date. Some other senior members of the Greens are, however, more sympathetic

A Centre for Human Survival at the Australian National University

A centre for human survival at the Australian National University (ANU) has been proposed by Emeritus Professor Bob Douglas, Julian Cribb, and others. What follows are some early thoughts on this excellent idea.

Soon before the asteroid struck, initiating the 5^th great extinction, an imaginary survey was conducted among the dinosaurs. Unanimously, they predicted the indefinite survival of their species. Today, most human thought leaders are similarly optimistic. Optimism is common in humans, the one species definitely known to be aware of their limited individual lifespans; optimism is a trait perhaps favoured by evolution. Optimism is especially frequent in elites such as politicians and chief executives. Optimism breeds success; pessimists are rarely popular.  

There are important exceptions: Winston Churchill, almost alone among his peers, foresaw WWII. Bertrand Russell, following WWII, worried that nuclear weapons heralded the demise of civilisation. In 1983 Carl Sagan and colleagues warned that a fairly small nuclear war could trigger “nuclear winter”, leading not only to the end of civilisation, but our species.

Yet, optimism bubbles afresh. Most people, most of the media, and even most academics dismiss concerns about human survival as “catastrophism”. The current recurrence of famine is generally considered an aberration; blighted places like Yemen, South Sudan and Syria are explained away as special cases, dependent on “political”, “economic” or “ethnic” factors, in ways that persistently disguise and marginalise linked underlying root causes. These deep causes are rarely analysed or even admitted, though a recent analysis of Niger is a good exception. Another is the work of the  OASIS Initiative, based at the University of California, Berkeley.

In recent years, new threats have been more widely recognised: climate change, inequality and biodiversity loss. Each of these threats have champions, but the voices of the few scientists and activists who warn not only of the unified, systemic nature of these threats (such as limits to growth) but that they literally threaten human survival is scarcely heard. Relatedly, paths toward the alleviation of these threats are almost invisible.  It is as though global elites have determined that a “fortress” or “enclave” world – pockets of liberalism and order in spreading chaos –  is an acceptable outcome, even desirable (think of gated communities writ large). This is deeply problematic; as the pockets of order contract, authoritarianism within them is likely to rise (think of Turkey). Outside the refuges, brutality and chaos will spread. Already this dystopia subtly threatens the enclaves. These threats are increasingly obvious.

Why should Australians care about Human Survival?

In recent years, Australians have looked increasingly inward, pursuing their own enclave strategy. Foreign aid has been cut, negative feelings towards refugees and many visa-bearing migrants have strengthened. Australia’s world-class climate science capability, and world-leading expertise in renewable energy technology have not translated into effective action. Instead, a series of policy decisions (supported by the main political parties) have seen Australians punch far above our weight as per capita emitters of carbon dioxide. Collectively, we are now even blasé about the imminent death of the Great Barrier Reef. 

“Economics”, as conventionally defined, has harmed not only the environment, but also concerns about global social justice. Instead of health and wealth for all, too many Australians seem to relish life in a fortress, scarred by growing national inequality.

It was not always so. After WWII the visionary Australian politician Doc Evatt played an important role in establishing the United Nations. In the 1960s the Colombo Plan was based on the principle that training the most capable graduates in our region, and then returning them home, would generate goodwill to Australia and foster improved regional governance. Today, we seek foreign students mostly for their fees, in exchange for adjusting to a model of funding which does not allow teaching to be prioritised in the same way’. 

We cannot reproduce the past, but we can again recognise that long term good is not always guaranteed by the individual pursuit of self-interest. “Health for all” may now be beyond reach, and dangerous climate change seems inevitable. Australians cannot solve either problem. However, we can contribute to navigating the shoals. Civilization’s collapse is not inevitable; a small nudge in the right direction might be crucial.

Why should Human Survival interest the Australian National University?

By any metric the ANU is a leading university. The university’s location in our capital, and the word “National” in its title give the ANU a unique opportunity and indeed a responsibility for public good leadership.

Credible and contemporary concerns about human survival exist, including within academia, such as at Cambridge and Oxford. But these concerns are hard to find in elite discourse, and are easy to dismiss. A centre for human survival, based at the ANU in our national capital would inspire intellectual leadership. 

Warning of the risk we face is not the same as from Hanrahan(1) that we will all be "rooned". Churchill’s alarms had effect, even before Chamberlain’s resignation as UK Prime Minister. The warnings of Russell, Albert Einstein, Joseph Rotblatt and Sagan also, eventually, bore fruit, such as the abolition of atmospheric atomic tests, and treaties which cut nuclear arsenals.

An ANU Centre for Human Survival would give voice in Australia to these concerns, and contribute to global leadership. Of course it is ambitious. There is nothing like this in the Southern Hemisphere and far too little in the Northern Hemisphere. This alone shows its originality. As for importance, is there anything more important than Human Survival?

Universities in Australia still have considerable freedom of thought and expression, qualities vital for a Centre for Human Survival to thrive. Remember, the primary purpose of such a centre is not to foster short-term national wealth, nor even national well-being. It is much larger. It is to catalyse academic and public debate concerning the existential risks that humanity now faces: not in a single discipline (e.g. economics, security, health, environment) — but in the intermeshed, interdisciplinary field some call “sustainability science”. If humans survive, so will Australians.

What would the Centre for Human Survival do?

The Centre would function as a hub for academic work and advocacy concerning the greatest risks that humans face. It would intersect with other centres and individuals at the ANU, such as the Fenner School for Environment and Society and the ecological economist Robert Costanza. It would build on the legacy of Frank Fenner, Tony McMichael, Peter Doherty and Stephen Boyden, each of whom worried or worry about the possibility of civilisation collapse, and, possibly, human extinction (and had or have deep links with the ANU). 

Staff and students would contribute to academic life, within and outside the ANU, just as at any other ANU academic centre. International links, especially with Europe, Asia and America would be important. The centre would host regular seminars, open to the public and to ANU staff, and occasional conferences, giving voice to the critical minority of outstanding people, globally, who express credible fears that human survival is at risk, but also provide hope that we can still do something meaningful about it.

Budget

A recurrent annual budget of $2M would enable the employment of a director, deputy director and approximately 7 other staff, including three administrative.  Up to 5 doctoral students could initially be supported and trained.

A goal would be to leverage these funds with grants, from funders within and outside Australia. As the “sustainability transition” progresses, it may be possible to attract funds, building on the ANU’s reputation and the importance of the intellectual problem of human survival. Potential funders include the Wellcome Trust, Rockefeller Foundation, the Australian Research Council and entrepreneurs such as Elon Musk.

Outreach

It is not enough for the staff and students of the Centre for Human Survival to attain academic excellence. It is vital to have a strong social and mainstream media presence. The message of the Centre for Human Survival is so startling that mainstream media may not, initially, take it seriously. However, its location at the Australian National University would be extraordinary, difficult to dismiss as fantastic or lightweight.

Notes:

1. To non-Australians, this is cryptic. Hanrahan was a fictional character, always pessimistic, ultimately proven wrong (probably!)