Isaac Asimov's bathroom metaphor

[Doomerologist]

I quite like it, I think it's a nice way to visualize and understand the population issue. I'm guessing most of you have heard it before, but for those who haven't here it is:

Taken from an Interview by Bill Moyers on A World Of Ideas:

MOYERS: What happens to the idea of the dignity of the human species if this population growth continues at its present rate?

ASIMOV: It will be completely destroyed. I like to use what I call my bathroom metaphor: If two people live in an apartment, and there are two bathrooms, then both have freedom of the bathroom. You can go to the bathroom anytime you want to and stay as long as you want to for whatever you need. And everyone believes in the freedom of the bathroom; it should be right there in the Constitution.

But if you have twenty people in the apartment and two bathrooms, no matter how much every person believes in freedom of the bathroom, there is no such thing. You have to set up times for each person, you have to bang at the door: "Aren't you through yet?" and so on. In the same way, democracy cannot survive overpopulation. Human dignity cannot survive it. Convenience and decency cannot survive it. As you put more and more people onto the world, the value of life not only declines, it disappears. It doesn't matter if someone dies. The more people there are, the less one individual matters.

Cheers!

[Ibon]

I quite like it, I think it's a nice way to visualize and understand the population issue. I'm guessing most of you have heard it before, but for those who haven't here it is:

Taken from an Interview by Bill Moyers on A World Of Ideas:

MOYERS: What happens to the idea of the dignity of the human species if this population growth continues at its present rate?

ASIMOV: It will be completely destroyed. I like to use what I call my bathroom metaphor: If two people live in an apartment, and there are two bathrooms, then both have freedom of the bathroom. You can go to the bathroom anytime you want to and stay as long as you want to for whatever you need. And everyone believes in the freedom of the bathroom; it should be right there in the Constitution.

But if you have twenty people in the apartment and two bathrooms, no matter how much every person believes in freedom of the bathroom, there is no such thing. You have to set up times for each person, you have to bang at the door: "Aren't you through yet?" and so on. In the same way, democracy cannot survive overpopulation. Human dignity cannot survive it. Convenience and decency cannot survive it. As you put more and more people onto the world, the value of life not only declines, it disappears. It doesn't matter if someone dies. The more people there are, the less one individual matters.

Cheers!

That is a great quote. I think democracy is an endangered species in the age of overshoot frankly. But not the ideal. We will get back to it when the balanced ratio of humans to bathrooms is restored.

[Ludi]

Humans used to all crap together in the same bathroom, before the invention of privacy. And even before the invention of bathrooms, humans used to share the animal bathroom.

[Ibon]

Humans used to all crap together in the same bathroom, before the invention of privacy. And even before the invention of bathrooms, humans used to share the animal bathroom.

I remember once in Chiapas mexico with a serious case of the shits I went into an open bathroom and made a bowel movement in front of about 20 other people. I was very proud of myself but only confronted a life long taboo when the "consequences" forced me too........

[TWilliam]

Wasn't it actually one of the Founding Fathers who pointed out that democracy as a social structure didn't work much beyond the level of a village of 200 - 300 or so individuals?

[wisconsin_cur]

Wasn't it actually one of the Founding Fathers who pointed out that democracy as a social structure didn't work much beyond the level of a village of 200 - 300 or so individuals?

That is probably why they decided to go with a republic.

I for one think I might build an outhouse next week... and I am not going to tell any of you where it is located!

To the point of the metaphor however, it is a very Malthusian observation and one I would not disagree with too much except regarding this important point: what we are running short (or will be running short) of, however, is water, food and oil not free speech or ballots.

Whether or not republican virtues continue to be valued will not determine what the outcome is, totalitarian or democratic we will no longer be willing to share (ie offer on a free market) those things which are scarce. We will not take turns sharing the bathroom, we will seize it for ourselves (or try to) and let the others suffer the consequence of its lack.

The idea that republics are less likely to go to war or wage war more humanely is largely a myth. Republics are happy warriors when the will of the people is whipped up by applying the appropriate sociological triggers. We will at least try to go and take their oil. We will sell our grain to our allies and not to our adversaries. we will use our deep water navy to protect our shipping and maybe even seize raw materials going else where. Given the correct set of circumstances even Katie Couric will talk about our brave men and women doing what needs to be done in these dangerous times... regardless of what it is that "needs to be done."

[TWilliam]

Whether or not republican virtues continue to be valued will not determine what the outcome is, totalitarian or democratic we will no longer be willing to share (ie offer on a free market) those things which are scarce. We will not take turns sharing the bathroom, we will seize it for ourselves (or try to) and let the others suffer the consequence of its lack.

The idea that republics are less likely to go to war or wage war more humanely is largely a myth. Republics are happy warriors when the will of the people is whipped up by applying the appropriate sociological triggers. We will at least try to go and take their oil. We will sell our grain to our allies and not to our adversaries. we will use our deep water navy to protect our shipping and maybe even seize raw materials going else where. Given the correct set of circumstances even Katie Couric will talk about our brave men and women doing what needs to be done in these dangerous times... regardless of what it is that "needs to be done."

I would tend to agree cur, except that I would argue that such an outcome is less a failing of the republican ideal (and incidentally, I am referring to it as the Founders framed it, not the modern perversion), than it is a failure of the people (and leaders) to actually uphold it. Such actions would in effect be more in line with democratic thinking (i.e. majority rule) than republican. Even if you happen to be a minority, if you have the largest military force bar none, then you are an effective majority.

[The Dude]

So that's why we're going down the crapper.



For the Asimov quote, linky-poo: Bill Moyers World of Ideas - Isaac Asimov. This is the complete interview, Heinberg used a snippet in his piece about "Urinetown" which was folded into Peak Everything.

MOYERS: What did you mean when you said once that we have to stop living by the code of the past?

ASIMOV: Times change. For example, in the past we felt motherhood was the most important thing a woman could do, and that to be a good wife and mother was the sum total of a woman's purpose in life. She didn't need an education or interests outside the house. You know, Kinder, Kirche, Kuche - the children, the church, the kitchen - or in English you say, "Keep 'em barefoot and pregnant." Well, we can't do that any more. We can't raise women to be baby machines. In the old days, we didn't worry about the future. Now we must. Things are changing so fast that we have to worry about the future all the time.

MOYERS: You and I may not be around when it arrives.

ASIMOV: Our children will be, and our grandchildren - and the human race. I don't want to sound like a foolish idealist or as though I just love humanity. But, look, my books are going to survive me - I want to have people alive to read them.

Well, that's enough of this crap.

[OldStone50]

All interesting comments. Yet, beside the issues of consumable resources and social structures for distributing them (i.e., food, water, oil, etc., and elitist vs. pluralist systems), Asimov also, or perhaps expressly, pointed out the practical limit on one resource that all humans seem to crave: territory. We are very much social animals, and do like to congregate, but we also really want our territory, either individually or communally.

The amount of territory we each effectively demand is also closely related to the amount of technology we each use. We either personally claim that territory by traveling, or we claim it by proxy through the production and transportation of goods that support the technology we use. Some might claim they only demand their 35 m^2 studio apartment, but the mines and factories and farms that result in their I-phone, laptop, HD-TV, BMW and cheese and wine brunches are all located somewhere. The annual vacation to Aruba puts territorial pressures on that small island, not to mention the territorial pressures created by the infrastructure to get there. And the more people there are wielding the more technology, the more often that knocking at the door is heard and the more aggressive is the demand, "Aren't you through yet?"

[Iaato]

Bartlett mentions the bathroom metaphor in his exponential lecture, too.

Replace the word technology, Oldstone, with the word energy in your discourse, and I think you'll have a better defense there. Technology is nothing more that a use for maximizing power intakes and flow-throughs in the system. It's an important discrimination.

Territory and energy use are a function of species, gender, age and a number of other variables, too.

[OldStone50]

Replace the word technology, Oldstone, with the word energy in your discourse, and I think you'll have a better defense there.

I fully agree that energy use is a good instrument for measuring territory demand. Another analogy is to consider a bunch of marbles being bounced around in a tin can. If energy is low, then the marbles only strike each other occasionally and with minimal force - each marble's territorial demand is lower. If the marbles are being bounced around with high energy, then they strike each other with more frequency and with greater force - each marble's territorial demand is higher.

I'm often puzzled by how little attention is given to human spatial demand. We're confronted with it every time we go to a popular natural location, e.g., the beach or the park, and every time we use a popular transportation route, e.g., the expressway out of town on Friday afternoon. Yet people seem to discount the premium on space. Perhaps it is me who is overly sensitive to the strictures imposed by density, but I do like a little elbowroom.

[hillsidedigger]

But, Ann Coulter (who I think I have read is childless) preaches that her Lord desires to see the Earth populated with humans to the point of standing-room only

and then do the same to other planets!

[General Doom]

Perhaps it is me who is overly sensitive to the strictures imposed by density, but I do like a little elbowroom.

I feel this way too, and more so the older I get. I used to be able to enjoy myself in huge crowds, but not anymore. In fact these days it makes me downright uncomfortable no matter how compelling my reason for being there.

I had been thinking of the bathroom metaphor again over the past few days as well, probably because of the other population thread you recently started, OldStone50. Thanks for bumping this thread.

[Newfie]

Make that three for the elbow room.

However there is an interesting counterpoint that I don't fully understand. While there are popular attractions that people congregate at, there are also spaces where people shun. We were talking about this just Sunday as we sailed down the Delaware Bay. In this section of the bay the water is still fresh and it was quite warm. The weather was HOT. On the Delaware side there were occasional sand beaches that, from our distance looked nearly pristine. There was not one person there. Yet the dam boat ramp across from us at the marina is chock a block full of all kinds of craft, many of them loud and obnoxious and fast.

Today I drove through the area and the beaches are not accessible by road and saw that these areas were, by and large, public wildlife areas.

I think that humans are really a heard species. If you read Diamond "Guns, Germs & Steel" he talks about the traits necessary for an animal to be a good candidate for domestication. My observation is that we humans fit the criteria pretty damn well. ON AVERAGE we like to think we have a need for space but in reality we do want to be part of the hive. There are some places on earth where the living density is just mind boggling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ci ... on_density

Manila has over 110,000/sq. mile.

For comparison Paris has 54,000 while NY and London don't make the top 50.

And another list, somewhat different ranking:

http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/la ... y-125.html

[OldStone50]

I think that humans are really a heard species. If you read Diamond "Guns, Germs & Steel" he talks about the traits necessary for an animal to be a good candidate for domestication. My observation is that we humans fit the criteria pretty damn well. ON AVERAGE we like to think we have a need for space but in reality we do want to be part of the hive.

Yep, we're a social animal alright. There are very few who leave the herd entirely and for long. And certainly there is a vast range of different tolerances for different population densities. Me, I get nervous and grumpy in the city, but I've met others who get the willies if they can't see any lights from other houses. Maybe that's getting toward more than two standard deviations, at both ends of the curve, away from the median. Maybe the curve is even skewed toward the city and crowd lovers. But just as most hermits come in out of the woods every once in a while, the crowd lovers like to escape every once in a while, or at least want to know that escape is still possible, should they ever want to. But when you feel escape is no longer possible...

Sure, any of us could now escape by going into the desert, or onto the glaciers or out to sea - assuming we could afford the necessary kit - but we mostly want to escape to choice places, not the places nobody else wants either. And choice places today are in short supply.