ON NEIL YOUNG -- AND ISAAC ASIMOV

                             
                LET'S HEAR IT FOR NEIL AND ISAAC 

      When I became aware of rock star Neil Young's recent criticism of Alberta's Athabasca tar sands projects, I could not help but think of an American science fiction writer who was also a professor of biochemistry -- and a leader in defense of the environment. His name was Isaac Asimov, and he lived from 1920 to 1992.

      Neil Young made headlines by labeling the Athabasca tar sands projects, in total, as a huge environmental disaster, declaring at the same time that they are crushing First Nation rights in the several regions involved.

      In touring the area "to see it for myself," Young (we're not related) likened the effects of the tar sands development to the devastation caused by the Second World War's U.S. nuclear bomb attacks on Japan.

      Young was not suggesting, as some of his critics try to hint, loss of life from the tar sands in any way resembling the scores and scores of thousands of Japanese killed by the American atomic bombs of World War Two. But he was saying that the Athabasca oil-development region looks as if it has been stricken by atomic explosions. And he suggested that the tar sands pose a distinct threat to human health in the tar sand regions, and possibly beyond.

      In issuing his dramatic warning about the continuing and growing dangers of the world-wide dependence on carbon-based energy, taking the tar sands as a prime example, I believe Young was acting as a sincere, prudent, and environmentally responsible citizen.


                FROM ATHABASCA TO WHAT FUTURE?

      The dependence to which he referred, we must note, is a dependence much beloved by the giant worldwide oil companies, and one we can expect them to promote and cultivate, even to the day there's little oil left.

      In discussing the Young story I want to state that it did not merely remind me of Isaac Asimov -- it also led me to search out and find, in a corner of my overloaded bookshelves, an old volume by that great man himself. It is a book that long ago showed where humanity was being led by governments and energy corporations.

      And, so, in support of Neil Young's case, I wish to review the Asimov book, especially one key chapter in it. (I urge the readers of this Blog to try to find a copy of the book -- in a public library, or a book store. My copy came from a 1998, Richmond, B.C., library book sale. Price: one dollar. Perhaps it was considered by local librarians to lag behind the times, and was therefore tossed into the discards for sale. But, as the reader will see, I look upon the book as being very much still with the times. It was one of the best dollars I've ever spent.)

      Prof. Asimov gave his book a slightly ominous title: "TODAY AND TOMORROW AND . . ."

      Published in 1973 by Doubleday & Co., the book is a compilation of many articles that had been previously printed in a variety of publications. The book is divided into two sections: Part One is entitled "Today" and covers the basics of biology, astronomy, chemistry and physics.  Part Two, which he headed "And Tomorrow," was divided into chapters covering space, the computer age, science fiction in the future -- plus a part labelled "On Earth."


                ISAAC'S KEY: LIMITING POPULATION

      I found the "On Earth" section to be the most arresting part of the book. In it, Asimov declares that the greatest threat facing humanity is the apparently never-ending increase in human population. And he does this in his own direct, clear-eyed style, and supplies plenty of science to support his findings.

      Prof. Asimov wrote this, remember, at a time when the world population was about 3.7 billion. In case you haven't looked at the figures recently, I can reliably report that we now have 7.2 billion humans on our globe (give or take a couple of million). This would sadden him greatly, I'm sure. He writes that in the environmentally best of all possible Earths, one billion people would be just fine, possibly even ideal. Much beyond that, though, he deplores as terribly dangerous for humanity.

      Prof. Asimov detailed some fascinating figures on, of all things, human tonnage. He said that if the current rate of population increase continues for 1,560 years (dating this from 1973, of course), by then the mass of humanity will be equal to the mass of the earth, which he placed at 6,600 billion billion tons (you read it right -- that's "billion," two times after 6,600, and you couldn't count that high if you could live without  food or sleep  for 200 normal lifetimes, counting one at a time).

      Such a human increase is, says Asimov, "Impossible." I will quote him directly as he expands on this. He describes certain fundamentals of the earth and its place in the universe.


                HERE' S THE NITTY-GRITTY

      "Let's search for a more realistic limit, then (Asimov wrote).  The total mass of living tissue on earth today is estimated to be something like 20 million million tons, and this cannot really incrrease as long as the basic energy source for life is sunlight.

      "Only so much sunlight reaches Earth; only so much of that sunlight can be used in photosynthesis; and therefore only so much new living plant tissue can be built up each year. This amount built up is balanced by the amount that is destroyed each year, either through spontaneous death or through consumption by animal life.

       "Animal life may be roughly estimated (Prof. Asimov continues) as one tenth the mass of plant life or about two million million tons the world over.  This cannot increase either, for if, for any reason, the total mass of animal life were to increase significantly, the mass of plants would be consumed faster than it could be replaced, as long as sunlight is only what it is. The food supply would decrease drastically and animals would die of starvation in sufficient numbers to reduce them to the proper level.

      "To be sure, the total mass of human life (Prof. Isamov's italics) has been increasing throughout history, but only at the expense of other forms of animal life.  Every additional ton of humanity has meant, as a matter of absolute necessity, one less ton of non-human animal life."

      But be quite certain, says Prof. Asimov -- something (my italics) will happen before we get to the state of impossibly dense population levels the globe over (all 200,000,000 square miles of it). Except that we can't make it that far, he implies, not nearly that far.  He concludes that humanity is unlikely to avert some sort of disaster, as it keeps growing to ultimately immense numbers, unless humanity achieves international cooperation in reducing births. I'll repeat that: Disaster! Unless we achieve international cooperation in reducing births.


                WARMING UP IS THE SUBJECT
   
      But that is not all -- there are other problems.  Energy, for instance.  More people means that more energy is needed.  Yet, more energy means more pollution, does it not? More pollution means more greenhouse gas, thus eventual overheating of the planet. Will that be overheating to the point of human extinction? Will we be able to overcome the negative elements of conflicting cultural, regional, religious and national interests on birth-control?

      Prof. Asimov, by my study of his writings, and on the basis of his scientific facts, figures that if we keep carrying on the way we've been doing, population-wise, then we've got about 400 years left as the dominant creature on Earth. Unless . . . something . . . is done . . . to slow down population growth -- with its accompanying huge, increasing demand for such things, don't forget, as tar sands oil.

      I believe we are all indebted to the late, great Prof. Asimov for his contribution to human understanding of an existential threat. And we are obliged to Neil Young, for standing up to the environmentally-challenged federal government and its corporate buddies on the tar sands issue.

      We wish Neil Young and his supporters good luck, and hope their work will encourage Canada and the rest of the world to find and develop cleaner, safer alternatives to the ultimate disasters lurking in carbon-based energy.

                                ______________________________