Notes from a Dying Planet: Is Life on Earth Doomed?

Welcome to the Living to 100 Club Podcast. Here's our host, Dr. Joseph Casciani.

Welcome to all of our listeners tuning in to the Living to 100 Club Podcast. This is Joe Casciani, your host for this program. I'm very happy to welcome each of our listeners. As many of you know, these podcasts are recorded and are available within a week on the club website, livingto100.club. We focus on successful aging, longevity, and making it over the hurdles. And one of the best parts about hosting these conversations is bringing in guests to share valuable information with our listeners. —information that makes us more informed, helps us to live longer and healthier, and inspires us to do better. Our guest today is Dr. Paul Brown. For many years, Dr. Brown has been writing about the perils facing our planet, from climate change to overconsumption. He believes—and wants to be proven wrong—that humans will not be able to stop accelerating environmental collapse and life on Earth will perish. He has spent years researching this proposition and will share his reasoning with us today. First, a little background. Paul Brown received his BS, PhD, and postdoctoral training at MIT, University of Chicago, and Cornell University, respectively. He is a neuroscience professor emeritus, retired from the Department of Physiology and Pharmacology at West Virginia University, He wrote over 60 peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals, as well as a half dozen books on neuroscience, computing, and electronics. He wrote Notes from a Dying Planet, 2004 to 2006, about the path humans have taken to the present state of overpopulation, mass extinction, and climate change. His current project is Notes from a Dead Planet, 2021, which argues that human behavior is dooming life on Earth. We're very fortunate to have Dr. Brown on our program today. Paul, welcome to our show.

Thank you very much.

I'm glad to be here. Glad to have you with us. Looking forward to this conversation. I always begin my podcast by asking our guests to tell us a little bit about the journey that brought you to where you are today.

Well, first of all, science has always been my guiding principle in life, uh, and that brings a certain responsibility. It requires us to change our most fundamental beliefs when evidence and reason show that they are wrong. And as an example, in the 1970s— that's a long time ago— I decided not to have children. Uh, and that was based on the overwhelming evidence that humans were already overpopulated and were damaging the planet, specifically damaging the ecosystem, which is the web of life that we depend on for our own survival and well-being. In the '80s and the '90s, I began to understand that fossil fuels were causing climate change, and I started lecturing on the subject around the year 2000. In 2006, I published Notes from a Dying Planet, an account of how we arrived at our current self-destructive state. At that time, I mourned the loss of life on Earth, but I didn't voice that because I was afraid of discouraging action. In 2010, I ran unsuccessfully for legislative office on the issue of global warming in a state where coal was king, namely West Virginia. I have a free news link service, eSamizdat, in which I try to counteract the effects of corporate media, and I'm active on Twitter for the same purpose. Right now I'm finishing Notes from a Dead Planet, which will be my last effort.

Well, Yes, dire words, dire warning. You present a lot of evidence that argues in favor of your beliefs, of your position. So let me, let me ask, what do you think are the strongest or the most serious findings that you're seeing or you're reporting on?

Well, the most obvious is in the area of global warming. The science is conclusive that we've raised atmospheric temperature by 1.2 degrees centigrade or Celsius, and that may not seem like much, but it's also— it's already causing enormous harm, and it's due to the release of greenhouse gases, mostly from burning fossil fuel and animal agriculture. The consequences have been horrendous. 1.5 degrees Celsius, just a third of a degree more, is the supposed threshold for very serious consequences, and some places like the North Atlantic coast of the US are already up to 2 degrees Celsius, well past the 1.5-degree threshold. In my opinion, current conditions are unsurvivable, and things are getting worse explosively. We're now consuming natural resources 1.7 times as fast as nature can replenish them. And we've started the 6th mass extinction in the history of Earth, at least as fast as the worst one, which wiped out more than 90% of species on the planet. That was almost a game-ending event, and the current mass extinction is worse. Fires are raging all over the planet right now. One-eighth of California has burned already. Droughts and heat waves are killing crops, livestock, wildlife, and people, and floods are happening almost daily in some part of the world. Violent storms are destroying infrastructure. Island countries are becoming submerged by rising sea levels. Bees, the pollinators that we depend on for crops, are dry— dying fast, And in fact, in some places, people are having to use hand pollination of crops because there aren't any natural pollinators left. Elsewhere, locusts and violent weather are destroying harvests. Right now, 25 million people are climate refugees, and that's expected to double in the next 5 years.

Are you seeing any optimism, any hope from this current summit in Glasgow, Scotland?

No, no, no, and I'll explain why that's the case, but very briefly, Greta Thunberg, whom many people have heard of as a youth who is protesting the inaction by world governments, has put it very well. That is to say, governments are putting on a show for their audience, which is all smoke and mirrors.

Yeah, I've heard comments like that. The activists are saying, "Lead or get out of the way," and the target goals for 2050, 2070, they're pretty far along on the scale of things, aren't they? Yeah. Yeah. So let me ask you about this this position on consumption, you saying we're consuming 1.7 more of the world's resources than are being replenished. So how does this happen? What's the evidence here? What are you basing this on?

Well, first of all, let's just consider something very, very simple. Total consumption by humans is simply the average individual consumption times the number of people. Okay, in fact, we get the average individual consumption by dividing the total by the number of people. The number of people on the planet, that is to say, human population, continues to explode at the rate of 80 million people a year. That's the equivalent of the entire U.S. population every 4 years. Per capita consumption is also increasing. The main problem is consumption by wealthy, less populous countries like the US. The US, in fact, accounts for 20% of world consumption with only 5% of the world's population.

How do you count consumption? How do you measure that?

Well, it's the use of resources. The use of air, water, natural resources like wood, anything that nature is producing. Okay. And for that matter, of things that we produce. So when I say that we're consuming 1.7 times the amount that nature produces, that means that, um, sometime around August of every year we've used up that year's budget in terms, in terms of natural resources, and we're now eating into the budget for future generations. Yeah, like tapping into our savings account.

Exactly. Yeah, it's a very good analogy.

So in fact, um, in just 40 years, as an example, a forest area the size of Europe has been destroyed. In just 40 years. In the last century, we've reduced forests on this planet by half. Obviously, there's no way that we can continue that rate of consumption. Forests are in fact the site of most of our biodiversity, which is the foundation of the world ecosystem we depend— which we depend on for survival. That ecosystem is what provides us with fresh air and clean water, uh, resources like wood and so forth. Besides the huge area that's been lost, the remaining area is fragmented to the point where habitats of many species are too small for them to survive. And so those species, by virtue of having habitats that are too small, are dying out, and that's a large part of the mass extinction that we're undergoing. Give you a little perspective here: of the millions of species on this planet, our one species, human beings, constitutes a third of all of mammalian biomass. If you were to take all the mammals on the planet and put them on a scale one-third of the weight would be human beings. What's worse is that our livestock and pets make up three-fifths of that biomass. Okay, so between the two of them, we are taking up a large fraction of, of the biomass on the planet. And in fact, all the other mammals on the planet constitute only 1/20th of the total. That just isn't survivable because those animals are part of the ecological web that we depend on for our well-being.

Okay, so yeah, that's a small fraction of the total amount of human or organisms on the planet. Exactly.

So you can't depend on 1/20th of the mammals on the planet, uh, to maintain an ecosystem that will keep the rest of the mammals on the planet, namely us and our livestock, alive. It's just not possible. So to arrest the current mass extinction, we have to set aside half the planet for wildlife. And at the moment, half the planet is taken up by agriculture alone, and that's not even counting other human activities. At this point, if we want the planet to heal— and it's, and it's already deeply injured— we need net negative consumption. I estimate the U.S. would have to consume only 1/8 of what we do today. That means cutting way back on lifestyle, especially for the highest consumers, namely the greedy rich. It means zero waste, total recycling, and it means ending meat consumption, switching to non-nuclear, non-carbon renewable energy, curtailing travel and transport, consuming local goods, and even rationing. And now is the time when we have to have as few children as possible, because every child is another consumer of planetary resources. Right. And, and that will be— have to be done through family planning, education on overpopulation, and worldwide free reproductive services like contraception, abortion, and sterilization, all of which of course have to be voluntary.

Yeah, that's an important issue, and I'd like to get back to that in a minute, but first, as you talk about what we need to reduce our consumption to 1/8 of what we're doing today, that's, uh, that's a daunting number. I mean, that's hardly within the realm of, you know, conceivability, let alone actually doing it.

Yeah, as a matter of fact, a lot of people on this planet are consuming 1/8 of the current U.S. consumption level right now, and they're not doing badly. Yeah, we waste a tremendous amount of resources on junk.

Yeah, things that we don't need. Exactly. So when we talk about, you know, looking ahead, and we'll get to some of the solutions you're proposing also in a minute, but You know, my thing is successful aging and living longer, and when we talked on the phone, you said that most people born today will not live to 100. That's a pretty unpleasant thought. I mean, considering, you know, the average life expectancy is more or less increasing. There have been some bumps, but more or less increasing. But yet people born today will not live to see 100. Why do you say that?

Well, I'm afraid the, uh, the reasoning is pretty, uh, straightforward. All animals need food and shelter and, and other necessities of life, and all animals have evolved to produce more offspring than they— than necessary for their species to survive. And what will— when we talk about survive, we're talking about surviving competition with other species for the same niches and surviving periodic scarcity in resources and disease and predation by other critters. Those instincts are hardwired in our brains, just as they are for other animals. But our technical ability enables us to invade every ecological niche, and we have essentially destroyed more of nature and generated more waste than the system can, can handle. So when we talk about longevity, in my view, civilization itself can't survive 100 more years of disasters that we're already seeing. We can't survive the destruction of forests, uh, at the rate that we're seeing. We can't survive the rate at which forests are being destroyed by wildfires. We can't survive the decreasing crop yields in the face of an expanding population. So life expectancy is going to plummet as nations fail. If civilization can't survive 100 years, which is my view, then individuals Can't either. Right.

And that brings us to the crux of the issue about change and why isn't there more motivation to recognize this, these facts, these trends, these trajectories. Why aren't people more motivated to take action?

Well, again, uh, we're like other animals. We're hardwired to have more children than sustainable. And to use resources and generate waste as though there are no limits. We've eliminated the predators, disease, and starvation that keep other species' numbers down. We have no built-in appreciation of explosive change or the need to act before we feel threatened personally. Take all those things together, along with the fact that we're very eager to accept reassuring lies about the seriousness of the situation, and you can understand why most of us aren't motivated to do what needs to be done.

Well, let me ask you about the overpopulation, uh, population growth, and how it is such a serious factor contributing to these problems. Why hasn't more been done to stop the growth, or at least you know, add some measures to reduce the population growth. And that's, you know, it's, it's unpleasant, but, you know, a lot of the, a lot of the problems are generated in countries where there's uncontrolled population, and that's a big factor whether we want to accept it or not. I accept it. So what do you think about that?

Well, you, you raise some very interesting points. First of all, I think we have to realize that although there are countries where population is expanding so fast that the average age is in the, in the teens, like, like 15 or 16, and those countries are facing total collapse as a result, we have to understand that most of the consumption of natural resources has been by countries that we don't think of as being overpopulated because they overconsume. But let's get back to the question of population size. I think the attitude of most people has been, "Who gives you the right to tell me how many children I can have? That's a personal decision. It's none of your business." Well, people have the same attitude— some people have the same attitude about getting vaccinated. They're saying, that's a personal, personal decision, it's none of your business, uh, you have no right to tell me to get vaccinated. Well, we know that that attitude is wrong, and I argue that the same can be said about having children. There's strong pressure from pro-growth sectors in our, in our society, and those include economists businesses, and investors who all clamor for greater and continued economic growth. Well, continued economic growth depends on an expanding population, and everybody who has something to sell wants a larger market for their product, in spite of the fact that they are cutting off the limb that they're sitting on. I have to point out that religious zealots have a lot to answer for in this regard, and I'm especially thinking of fundamentalist Christian and Muslim, uh, countries. As, and as well, I'm thinking of nationalists who believe that they have to outbreed people who aren't like them. So there are whites who think that they have to outbreed blacks There are Jews who believe they have to outbreed Muslims, uh, and that attitude of course is self-destructive. Sure. But I think that the— these causes, which are highly misplaced, have been advanced by the crooked politicians who see them as an essential part of their base. And here I think I, I have to be honest and say The Republican Party is, is an example of that.

Yeah, I often think of third world countries where people have children because that's one of the few things that they can manage, and it's one of the few ways they can accumulate some type of resources or assets. That's all, it's all they have is to have more children. They don't have access to you know, maybe good jobs or education, but they can have large families, and I think that's got to be a plus, you know, in, in their own way, as something that's good for them. So we're also fighting that. I don't know if you agree or not, but I think I certainly do.

Uh, there's a, there's a long tradition in, in many countries, in fact, probably historically in most countries where people depend on their children, uh, to support them in their old age and to help them, uh, even in their, in their, in their prime years, uh, in producing whatever they, they, they are producing for, for, uh, to sustain them.

What would you recommend that governments do? And it is a voluntary process, but what What would you recommend that governments do to offer more education, more contraceptive access, things like that? Are there programs available for that?

There are, and they need to be greatly expanded. In some countries, public television, commercial television, they have soap operas that depict the, uh, the problems that arise from having families that are too large. There has to be a lot of that. We also have to have public education. People have to understand, uh, what it is they're doing when they produce more, more consumers. And of course, we need to have family, uh, reproductive health services available for free, uh, worldwide. And in many countries that's the case, in, in developed countries. But another example of, of the, uh, negative effects of religious conservatism is that when conservative governments in the United States have been in power, they have done everything they can to suppress reproductive services, not just in this country but in other countries as well, with what's called the Global Gag Rule that attempts to suppress family planning at all levels. What's the motivation there? What is driving that pursuit of fundamentalist views that are prevalent in the base for conservative politicians?

Okay, yeah, there's an irony there, um, uh, we, you know, promoting the population growth at the same time limiting funding for education, funding for healthcare, funding for even voting sometimes.

So there's a real irony there. Oh sure, there's even more irony in that these are the people who are opposed to, uh, vaccination mandates, even though they've all been vaccinated for diseases since their childhoods. Sure. And these are the people who reject science until they come down with COVID and then run to the hospital rather than their church to be cured.

Yeah, I saw the t-shirt and I will always remember it. It said, 'Science doesn't care what you believe.' And as you said, you've followed science your whole life, and that's what was driving so many of your, your interests and your professional work. So it doesn't matter what we believe and, you know, what the consequences are. It's what science says that, you know, that's gonna— that should be driving our, our decision-making, making it more informed decisions. So that's a problem. Yeah. And I always thought if people don't want to take the vaccines, that's fine. But they have to give up access to their health insurance. They have to give up any type of medical care, and they have to be responsible for anyone that they might impact with their, you know, if they test positive and they get sick, and other people that are affected by them, you know, have some way to claim liability. I mean, we, you know, I can appreciate somebody saying, I don't want to, I don't want the government telling me what vaccines I need, but at the same time, they have to be responsible for the consequences. And I think you just hit the nail on the head. You said they go to the hospital, they don't go to their, uh, support services for answers. They go to the hospital to get treated.

Yeah, we have laws against other forms of dangerous behavior, and, uh, we do what we can to prevent people from, uh, harming themselves and harming others, uh, in other ways. But well, yeah, we could go on forever on this, couldn't we?

Sure. Yeah. And you know, as you say, a lot of it is the, is the big governments, it's programs that are continuing to, uh, create more global warming and, uh, over, you know, overconsumption. And it's hard to really reconcile that kind of trend with what the evidence is about our dying planet. So that's a pessimistic view of things. I know you've heard this before, but it really is. And what— we're so close to that increase in our temperature. I mean, 1.5, and if we're at 1.2 now, 1.5 isn't so far because we've gone up, I think, a degree in the last 50 years or something. So Yeah, it's— what do you, what do you think? Where do we go from here?

I mean, well, well, I think where we are is, is unsurvivable, frankly, um, and, uh, we have to start lowering temperature. But there's been a strong denial movement regarding global warming, and it's been supported primarily, of course, by the fossil fuel industry and also by, uh the agribusiness, uh, the— that is to say, uh, the, the agricultural giants, uh, and this— they've been doing this even though they've known from their own research that global warming is due largely to the use of fossil fuels. And this denials have been very faithfully relayed by corporate media and by government. And the reasons are pretty obvious. They're both— both corporate media and government are owned by those corporations. There's pressure from all sides to consume more and to have more children. Governments owned by the corporations are faking attempts to control global warming, as evidenced by COP26, promises to do things by 2050 and 2070 are absolute frauds. They would be farcical comedies if it weren't for the tragic consequences involved. The fossil fuel industry and government are also using scams, and I'll give you some, some simple examples. They're using phrases like clean coal. There's no such thing. Green gas. That is to say, gas that can be used as a so-called bridge fuel, bridging fuel, blue hydrogen, which is made from natural gas and produces carbon dioxide in the process, and so-called carbon capture and storage, which has never worked. And all of these are hoaxes, but governments keep funding them. Instead of truly green renewable energy generation and storage. We have the technology to completely eliminate fossil fuel and nuclear power, and we, we have the ability financially to put them in place. Yeah. Uh, it should also be mentioned that any intelligent person that does the homework of searching for and reading the very digestible information provided by the scientific community would recognize that the hook— would recognize the hoaxes for what they are. The information is there, it's on the internet. Google and other search engines make it very easy to access that information, but very few people actually take advantage of that scientific information, which is free and readily available. Because they're used to getting their information fed to them by corporate media.

You said that we have the power to make some major changes, but it would be on the same scale as the buildup for the military during World War II, and that's what kind of forces would have to be rallied to make these kind of changes.

Is that going to happen? Well, you know, in, in more relaxed times, maybe 30 or 40 years ago, that kind of scale wouldn't, wouldn't have been necessary. We could have, we could have implemented the necessary changes at a rate that would be comfortable, but now that's no longer the case. And it is certainly possible for us to use the same level of commitment as we did during World War II. But I must say that our country is not the same country that it was during World War II. In order to accomplish what needs to be done now, we need to declare a national climate emergency, and that would involve bringing our military home, diverting Pentagon funding to ecological restoration, and instituting an Ecological Recovery Board with the same powers held by the War Production Board during World War II. And that production board had the ability to— the power to allocate resources and to direct the efforts of our manufacturing industry and to impose rationing. Sure. We need to do this unilaterally without any further international negotiations. We don't need the permission of other countries to do this, and they don't need our permission to do this. And we need to nullify corporate powers that stand in the way, such as the use of corporate money as political speech, lobbying for harmful policies, and international trade agreements that give corporations power over national governments. Right now, international corporations can sue governments if laws or policies are adopted that interfere with their profit-taking. That's simply That's simply, uh, piracy, and it can't be allowed anymore.

Yeah, being held hostages by these manufacturers.

Exactly. And, uh, the— our demobilized military forces and other available workers will need massive retraining. And the logics of the logistics of ecological recovery are— is going to need scientific directions and supervision. So that's the direction we have to go, and the sooner we go, the less painful it will be. The longer we delay, the less likely it will be that we'll even try it, right?

If we started 30 years ago, it wouldn't have been such a tall order, but now it's, it's much more difficult. And yeah, as you know, the saying goes, uh, the best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is today. Very good. But, but you're saying it is possible with a singular kind of laser-focused approach, remove the, um, corporate influence and lobbying and really zero in on this approach. So that's encouraging. I mean, you know, we can have our own views of how often that's going to happen. But just as a final question, for the individual who's listening to this conversation, very useful, valuable information, but is it, is it just a matter of being more conscious environmentally, or is it a matter of policy and progressive politics getting more involved on a local or state or federal level? I mean, what do we do? What does the individual do?

Well, at this point it's a matter of fighting for our lives. We need to make good trouble, be a major nuisance, kick out the corporate people at all levels of government, and they've infiltrated all levels to a very high degree. We need to set an example by kicking our fossil fuel habits, buying local, committing to zero waste, boycotting corporations and their media. And not traveling. And we need to educate ourselves and others, stand up against right-wing bullies and challenge every lie, run for office, and consider self-immolation. No, I'm just kidding. I'm not.

No, no, that's— we'll drop that last recommendation. Yeah, yeah, no, that's good, that's good, because that all opens up the door for a lot of things. I was micro and macro level. So I appreciate that. And a lot of this is outlined in your, your book that's pending and approaching publishing. When do you think the book will be out?

Well, so far I haven't even found an agent. Um, as you can imagine, the, uh, it's hard to find someone who's willing to publish the truth. Sure. And I don't know, it may never get published. Sure. Or I may end up having to self-publish, in which case, like Notes from a Dying Planet, uh, very, very few people will read it. Anyway, I have an assignment for, for your listeners. Yes, please. And that is to prove me wrong when I say life on Earth is doomed. Okay. On the other hand, I think your listeners have to take seriously the possibility that I'm right. Although I just endorsed all sorts of action short of violence, listeners need to understand that it's highly likely that this will be the end of our species and life on Earth. We need to be compassionate to each other and to the other species on the planet, and a spirit of hospice. You're all— we're all familiar with the concept of hospice, where people who are in terminal illnesses, live their lives to the best that they can in the time that they have left. If this is the end, then let's at least go out as nobly as we can and renounce our criminal past.

I like the phrase you use, make good trouble.

Yes, I forget who originated that phrase. Yeah, I like that.

That captures a lot. Looks like we're out of time for today, Paul, but before we wrap up, I just want to remind our listeners about a few items. I'm pleased to announce a co-sponsor for this podcast, A Mighty Good Time. Are you looking for ways to engage and stay active? Check out amightygoodtime.com. It's a one-stop shop for events and activities for those 50 and over. It's free to search and it's free to post. A Mighty Good Time dot com. Also, there's an offering on my website where individuals can arrange one-on-one coaching calls with Dr. Joe— that's me— to discuss bouncing back from setbacks. How can we tap into our resilience? How can we find ways to make it over those obstacles we face on our journeys? Take a look at the work with Dr. Joe Tab. On the website livingto100.com. Also, be sure to subscribe to our email list to receive our newsletter and other announcements. Finally, pick up a copy of my book on Amazon, Living Longer Is the New Normal. I think that whatever age you're at, inspiration and a positive mindset can be put to good use. That's my message in the book. Paul, thanks so much for being a guest on our program today. For those that might have might want to contact you, how can they do that?

Well, by far the best way is to email me at pbrown4348@gmail.com. I'll repeat that in a moment so listeners can find something to write with, but I'll— I, I should mention that I'll answer all correspondence, and those who are interested could subscribe to my free news link service Isamizdat, an electronic version of the person-to-person relaying of news that was common in the days of the Soviet Union when free speech was suppressed. And all they have to do in their email is to include the word subscribe. Now, once again, I can be contacted at pbrown4348@gmail.com. And it has been a tremendous pleasure talking with you. If everybody had the same sense of responsibility that you do, life would be much more likely to continue. Very kind words.

Thank you for that. I'm honored to have you as a guest on this program. I think you're sharing vital, life-saving information, so thank you so much. I really appreciate it. And thanks to all of our listeners for tuning in. Hope to see you next time.

Hi everyone. This is Meredith from the Senior Fitness with Meredith podcast where I discuss all things for seniors, from fitness, your health and wellness journeys, how to be all over strong and beyond. I also have my mini podcast called Motivation with Meredith. It's a great quick motivational pick-me-up for your days. Join me, listen now, search for Senior Fitness with Meredith on your favorite podcast platform.