This just in by way of Executive Editor Don Lyle. Dateline February 12, 2004, the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Anthropologist Virginia Abernathy, professor emeritas of psychiatry at Vanderbilt University, who spoke at the conference, proposed a link between oil and gas supply and fertility. Abernathy's proposal was made in two parts. First she argued a link between the availability of petroleum and the economy. I don't know anybody who would argue with that. Second, she argued a link between changes in economic conditions and fertility rates. My two kids aside, I know very little about fertility and am not in hot pursuit of additional knowledge. I know a bit more about economic conditions but I can't honestly comment on this link although, as you will note in a minute, that won't stop me.

Here is Abernathy's postulate in a nutshell. A prolonged increase in energy use per capita will drive up birth rates as it stimulates the economy. Conversely, a prolonged decline in energy use per capita will depress economic activity (it depresses me) and lead to lower birth rates. Since, according to Abernathy, oil and gas are "unparalleled sources of energy" you can substitute oil and gas use per capita for energy use per capita in the statements above. Even worse, Abernathy suggests that "numerous geologists, physicists and computer scientists have calculated that petroleum and liquid natural gas production will begin to plateau and then decline within 5 to 10 years."

If this is true, it is much too hard a burden to bear. Being unfairly maligned for the deterioration of the earth's environment is bad enough. But being in charge of the reproductive potential of the entire human race is another thing altogether.

I guess you figure that I have some qualms about Abernathy's theory. You figured right. First, it reminds me of the Malthusian argument. Thomas Malthus, an Enlightenment philosopher and economist, developed a widely accepted argument that the human population was self-regulating. He argued that population would expand until the food supply could no longer support it. Then, wars, pestulence and starvation would return the population to a balance with the food supply. What he didn't, and couldn't, calculate was the influence that scientific farming and animal husbandry would have on food supply. In fact, due to scientific methods, the food supply expanded, and continues to expand, to fit the world's population, for the most part. Malthus' postulate was overly simplistic, taking into account too few possible determinants of food supply. Abernathy's conclusion, likewise, is flawed by, among other things, the assumption that technology cannot rise to the occasion and provide sufficient supplies of oil and gas decades past the 5- to 10-year plateau and decline onset she references. And one wonders why she did not seek the input of recognized authorities in our industry when attempting to find supply numbers.

Second, Abernathy's focus lies primarily in industrialized economies. In fact, her theory is based primarily on US statistics. Subsistance economies, which encompass more that one half the world's population, appear to demonstrate no particular alteration in fertility that hinges on oil and gas supply.

And one other argument hit home. Abernathy blames the "baby boom" on the expanding prosperity fueled by cheap energy following World War II. As a baby boomer, I would argue with that. Economic prosperity to my father meant returning home to retake his job in the oil industry, a job that did not equal his officer's war service pay for several years. And me? I figure I am the product of a man and woman who had just survived one war only to be confronted with another, the Korean War, in which the bulk of the forces were composed of World War II vets who may not have seen much other chance to start a family.


Comments