[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: The Limits To Growth
In article <3288d4b4.6423368@nntp.ix.netcom.com> masonc@ix.netcom.com (Mason A. Clark) writes:
>
> On 12 Nov 1996 20:37:15 GMT, dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) wrote:
>
> > masonc@ix.netcom.com (Mason A. Clark) wrote:
> >
> > >4. The acidity of the "no limits" posters is not buffered by
> > > the fact that the worriers may have some points and may, by
> > > their anti-Pollyanna program be a major factor in postponing
> > > the time of reckoning.
> >
> > Mason,
> >
> > This is perfectly plausible, but is not in fact true. Us acid tongued
> > ones are the people who are in fact creating useful and usable
> > mechanisms or reckoning -- cost benefit analysis, international
> > treaties, arrests on the high seas, etc. etc. There is of course more
> > to be done, and we're doing it.
> >
> > The people you quite conservatively call Pollyannas are doing nothing
> > useful; if anything they harm the cause they claim to support,
> > bringing legislation, regulation, and negotiation into disrepute by
> > demanding laws and rules which are harmful and impotent. The
> > Environmental Protection Agency in its first flush of ukases is an
> > example of such laws and rules, and it is only now, 20 years later,
> > that the agency is becoming practical enough to do more good than
> > harm.
> >
> > -dlj.
>
> It appears that I mislead David and perhaps everyone with a kind of
> negative-positive: "anti-Pollyanna".
>
> The Pollyannas are the ones believing all is well, nothing can go wrong,
> unlimited growth is possible at least for the farthest forseeable future.
> By this definition, McCarthy would qualify (and that is NOT an insult).
> The anti-pollyannas to which I referred are the Jay Hansons and Ehrlichs
> who fear something will go wrong, in fact are terrified.
>
> With that understood, I repeat my plea for buffering of the acid:
>
> > >4. The acidity of the "no limits" posters is not buffered by
> > > the fact that the worriers may have some points and may, by
> > > their anti-Pollyanna program be a major factor in postponing
> > > the time of reckoning.
>
> May I add, I would be terrified by a world of Pollyannas. But please
> don't tell my Quimby - New Thought friends.
It is not my position that "unlimited growth is possible at least for
the farthest forseeable future." I argue in my Web site
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
that 15 billion can be supported at the U.S. level of material
consumption.
I also do not claim that "nothing can go wrong". My ideas of what the
dangers are differs considerably from that of the political environmentalists.
However, I have discussed the *possibility* that global warming will
occur *and* turn out to be harmful and have discussed ways of mitigating
the danger - again not the same ways as those advocated by the
ideological environmentalists. A position that it is appropriate to
wait is not a position that nothing can go wrong.
(I do not regard Mason Clark's misreading of my position as an insult).
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
During the last years of the Second Millenium, the Earthmen complained
a lot.
Follow-Ups:
References: