[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Human vs. natural influences on the environment



In <JMC.96Aug26191028@Steam.stanford.edu> jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John
McCarthy) writes: 
>
>In article <IZW8oS9cpoND069yn@teleport.com> kowens@teleport.com (Jeff
Owens) writes:
> brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears) wrote:
> > "By September 1979, all important life in the sea was extinct. 
> > Large areas of coastline had to be evacuated...  A pretty grim 
> > scenario. Unfortunately were a long way into it already...based 
> > on projections of trends already appearing..."
> >    - Paul Ehrilich, Environmental Handbook, 1970, pp 174
> 
> OK, the world is full of bad predictions.  Our interest should
> be to look at the facts and decide if todays predictions are
> based on good science or immature science.  The best way to do
> that is to discuss todays science and the recommendations by
> a consensus.  Why introduce radical views or obsolete views
> just to create a villain.
> 
>Ehrlich's obsolete views are worth quoting because he is still
>recognized as an authority.  Only last year he received the $350,000
>Heinz prize for his writings on population and environment.
>
>He continues with predictions of doom, although less flamboyantly than
>when he was younger.

It is not merely that *he* is still recognized,
but that his fallacious prediction method is still
in use, by him and others.

If he had said, to himself and others: 
"OK, I was totally mistaken, and now I see why:
same resources need not last forever, new ones can be
substituted; area productivity (and thus "carrying
capacity") is technology-dependent, it can change;
the environment is not always
degraded by human impact, it may be upgraded.
Now I've modified my approach to include these facts,
- and so this time I *may* be right" - after that,
he might be worth another look. 

And this applies to others as well. Is their
prediction method the same as his was back then?
Then they are even more foolish than he was then,
because they ought to know better now.

E.g., the 60's and 70's predictions of famine
foundered because of the Green Revolution. 
Too bad. Or, rather, wonderful.
But now we see articles  on "who will feed China" - 
which simply ignore the second round of the  
Green Revolution! By Lester Brown, too -
who knows all about these old false predictions,
because he made them. This is not even the same 
*kind* of error, but the exact same error, made, 
this time, in full view of facts. Deliberately? 
I'd certainly guess so, but it doesn't matter: 
in either case, these people are not worth listening to.
Fooled me once, shame on you; fooled me twice, shame 
on me.




Follow-Ups: References: