The Green Movement Bombs Again
Why is it that the modern Green movement is starting to resemble an aging 70's era band reuniting to play their greatest hits? A while back I noted how, carbon reduction be damned, Greenies say nuclear energy is bad, mmkay?
And now I discover the freakin' Population Bomb is back.
I'll pull out the gist of it to save you from crawling through the rest of the retread (emphasis below is mine):
Blah, blah, yada, yada. You've heard it all before, so we'll not belabor the point. The catchy new rallying cry is a call for a mandatory freeze on human reproduction for five years, with the well-thought-through implementation strategy of:
And mind you this grassroots movement is, like, totally going to be global. Global and grassroots. We'll pull that one off by umm... (mumble, mumble, mumble)... and then the world will be as one. Someone queue up John Lennon on the iPod!
(Quick aside: I'm not sure how this article belongs in a magazine about psychology. A case study in mass-hysteria, perhaps?)
How often do we have to go through this particular panic? It started with Malthus, comes around every couple of decades, and yet every time its adherents are absolutely convinced they're making a totally different point this time. The failure of all previous "population bomb" predictions not only doesn't disprove it this time, but has only lead to a "false sense of security" from which our new doom-sayers must take radical action to awaken us.
I don't have the time or patience to pick apart every rancid argument and assumption that goes into this particular alarmism. I'll simply call out a couple of broad points that will sail entirely over the head of anyone doltish enough to believe in this in the first place. In other words, I'm not talking to them. I'm talking to you, my far more enlightened reader. Saves a lot of time.
Point the first: The argument they make here is at its roots an economic argument. You know, resources are presumed to be growing scarce, therefore what are the implications to consumption rates, resource allocation, etc. The conclusion is always "We're doomed unless we get rid of all the people." But the argument that leads there is an economic one. Therefore, wouldn't you expect the principal adherents and advocates of it to be, oh I don't know, economists maybe? But for some strange reason they never are. Paul Erlich, who made his fame (and, one should note, his fortune - how's that for sustainable resource allocation) advocating this stupid argument throughout the 60's and 70's, is an entomologist specializing in butterflies. The dude advocating the same thing now (I know, I know, to some it's a totally different thing he's advocating, but they're morons and I'm not talking to them) is... um... he's a... err... well all his magazine bio tells us is:
That and a buck fifty will get you a cup of coffee.
Previous articles by this fellow bear titles such as, "Psychic Dogs, Eco-Psychology and Complexity Theory," "Self-Deception, Over-Confidence and Disposable Men: A Risky Proposition," and "Lying To Yourself, It's Not Always A Bad Idea." I'm going to go out on a limb and guess he's got some kind of psychology background, which is why he's doing his ranting about economics in the pages of "Psychology Today." For all I know he's the world's greatest living psychologist, and can turn a phrase with such skill William Faulkner would be begging for tips. But I see no evidence that he's also an economist, and giving the general crappitude of his argument I'm disinclined to extend him the assumption.
I'm not saying there's no such thing as a bad economist, or stupid economic theories. Obviously there are. The point is this particular catastrophist theory seems to emanate from people who aren't well versed in how to think through economic questions. That leads them to make wild overstatements and ridiculously broad assumptions on the basis of... well a whole lot of feeling and very little evidence. They seemingly don't believe they need evidence in places where any self-respecting economist would at least have the alacrity to fake it. That's why the catastrophic predictions stemming from this "theory" always turn out to be wrong. They're making economic predictions without bothering to do the economic analysis.
This was how Julian Simon, an economics hobbyist and all around swell guy, was able to make a fool of Paul Erlich the last time this disaster theory was being peddled. Simon knew his economics and therefore could spot that particular gobsmacking deficiency in this kind of argument.
Point the second: It's growing increasingly tiresome to listen to modern Greenies "discover" through "careful analysis" that mankind is the equivalent of some kind of virus infecting an otherwise healthy planet. Has it never occurred to these people that such a conclusion is more likely to demonstrate a problem with their assumptions and values than it is to argue for the elimination of the human race?
It's not hard to come to conclusions that lead one to see human beings as some kind of a "problem" to be "solved." All you need to do is start by presuming something is more valuable than human life, and look for all the ways human's going about their lives might impact that thing. The greater the impact and/or the higher the value placed in this other thing, the more human life looks like a problem.
At which point healthy people stop, reflect, and realize they've made an error in their values.
In the case of the Green movement, they've conceptualized some Eden which is the world they imagine would exist naturally if humankind didn't exist. Humans use up resources and chop down trees and stuff, and this is seen as making the world worse than it would otherwise be. Why they prefer that world, which is one they'd never get to experience because, umm... well I hope that's pretty obvious (I'm not talking to the dummies, remember?) is one of the mysteries of the Green movement. Increasingly gaining adherence among these same Greenies is the notion that this Eden is even more valuable than human life itself. It is that fundamental assumption that leads them ever more regularly down the logical ladder to the "discovery" that we need to reduce or eliminate human lives in order to make things "better."
The notion that "better" is itself inherently subjective gets staggeringly little contemplation among this crowd. Nor do they contemplate let alone articulate the core values that lead them to their anti-human life conclusions.
That's a problem because it's the difference between sensible environmentalism - which values a healthy environment in definable, measurable, and... most importantly... human terms - and anti-human zealotry, from which craziness and its associated nastiness emerges.
The 70's may be over but, as this issue illustrates, the bad ideas it left us didn't end with Disco.
And now I discover the freakin' Population Bomb is back.
I'll pull out the gist of it to save you from crawling through the rest of the retread (emphasis below is mine):
Here’s the truth: we are running out of resources and we are running out of time. The International Committee on Climate Change has said we have thee to five years to curb our ways or the current environmental disaster is irreversible. Irreversible means that the little economic hiccup we’re feeling today isn’t even the warn up round. It’s T-ball compared to the major leagues.
You think the economy is bad now—wait a few years. Wait until we’re almost completely out of oil and food and water and available land and really I could go on for two more pages listing everything we’re running out of. Why? Because we are quite literally running out of everything.
So how long do you have to wait to be starving, thirsty, and all the rest?
Truthfully, it shouldn’t be long now.
And the main reason it shouldn’t be long now is because there are already way too many of us. By now, everyone knows the current population stats. The earth is close to holding 7 billion people. If things don’t stop soon, by 2050, conservative estimates put the number at 9.2 billion.
Blah, blah, yada, yada. You've heard it all before, so we'll not belabor the point. The catchy new rallying cry is a call for a mandatory freeze on human reproduction for five years, with the well-thought-through implementation strategy of:
"So here’s my answer: Personal responsibility. A grassroots movement means we mean it. It means people having children in year six would feel shame and embarrassment at their unbelievable selfishness."
And mind you this grassroots movement is, like, totally going to be global. Global and grassroots. We'll pull that one off by umm... (mumble, mumble, mumble)... and then the world will be as one. Someone queue up John Lennon on the iPod!
(Quick aside: I'm not sure how this article belongs in a magazine about psychology. A case study in mass-hysteria, perhaps?)
How often do we have to go through this particular panic? It started with Malthus, comes around every couple of decades, and yet every time its adherents are absolutely convinced they're making a totally different point this time. The failure of all previous "population bomb" predictions not only doesn't disprove it this time, but has only lead to a "false sense of security" from which our new doom-sayers must take radical action to awaken us.
I don't have the time or patience to pick apart every rancid argument and assumption that goes into this particular alarmism. I'll simply call out a couple of broad points that will sail entirely over the head of anyone doltish enough to believe in this in the first place. In other words, I'm not talking to them. I'm talking to you, my far more enlightened reader. Saves a lot of time.
Point the first: The argument they make here is at its roots an economic argument. You know, resources are presumed to be growing scarce, therefore what are the implications to consumption rates, resource allocation, etc. The conclusion is always "We're doomed unless we get rid of all the people." But the argument that leads there is an economic one. Therefore, wouldn't you expect the principal adherents and advocates of it to be, oh I don't know, economists maybe? But for some strange reason they never are. Paul Erlich, who made his fame (and, one should note, his fortune - how's that for sustainable resource allocation) advocating this stupid argument throughout the 60's and 70's, is an entomologist specializing in butterflies. The dude advocating the same thing now (I know, I know, to some it's a totally different thing he's advocating, but they're morons and I'm not talking to them) is... um... he's a... err... well all his magazine bio tells us is:
"Steven Kotler is the author of West of Jesus: Surfing, Science and the Origins of Belief. His magazine writing has appeared in more than 31 publications."
That and a buck fifty will get you a cup of coffee.
Previous articles by this fellow bear titles such as, "Psychic Dogs, Eco-Psychology and Complexity Theory," "Self-Deception, Over-Confidence and Disposable Men: A Risky Proposition," and "Lying To Yourself, It's Not Always A Bad Idea." I'm going to go out on a limb and guess he's got some kind of psychology background, which is why he's doing his ranting about economics in the pages of "Psychology Today." For all I know he's the world's greatest living psychologist, and can turn a phrase with such skill William Faulkner would be begging for tips. But I see no evidence that he's also an economist, and giving the general crappitude of his argument I'm disinclined to extend him the assumption.
I'm not saying there's no such thing as a bad economist, or stupid economic theories. Obviously there are. The point is this particular catastrophist theory seems to emanate from people who aren't well versed in how to think through economic questions. That leads them to make wild overstatements and ridiculously broad assumptions on the basis of... well a whole lot of feeling and very little evidence. They seemingly don't believe they need evidence in places where any self-respecting economist would at least have the alacrity to fake it. That's why the catastrophic predictions stemming from this "theory" always turn out to be wrong. They're making economic predictions without bothering to do the economic analysis.
This was how Julian Simon, an economics hobbyist and all around swell guy, was able to make a fool of Paul Erlich the last time this disaster theory was being peddled. Simon knew his economics and therefore could spot that particular gobsmacking deficiency in this kind of argument.
Point the second: It's growing increasingly tiresome to listen to modern Greenies "discover" through "careful analysis" that mankind is the equivalent of some kind of virus infecting an otherwise healthy planet. Has it never occurred to these people that such a conclusion is more likely to demonstrate a problem with their assumptions and values than it is to argue for the elimination of the human race?
It's not hard to come to conclusions that lead one to see human beings as some kind of a "problem" to be "solved." All you need to do is start by presuming something is more valuable than human life, and look for all the ways human's going about their lives might impact that thing. The greater the impact and/or the higher the value placed in this other thing, the more human life looks like a problem.
At which point healthy people stop, reflect, and realize they've made an error in their values.
In the case of the Green movement, they've conceptualized some Eden which is the world they imagine would exist naturally if humankind didn't exist. Humans use up resources and chop down trees and stuff, and this is seen as making the world worse than it would otherwise be. Why they prefer that world, which is one they'd never get to experience because, umm... well I hope that's pretty obvious (I'm not talking to the dummies, remember?) is one of the mysteries of the Green movement. Increasingly gaining adherence among these same Greenies is the notion that this Eden is even more valuable than human life itself. It is that fundamental assumption that leads them ever more regularly down the logical ladder to the "discovery" that we need to reduce or eliminate human lives in order to make things "better."
The notion that "better" is itself inherently subjective gets staggeringly little contemplation among this crowd. Nor do they contemplate let alone articulate the core values that lead them to their anti-human life conclusions.
That's a problem because it's the difference between sensible environmentalism - which values a healthy environment in definable, measurable, and... most importantly... human terms - and anti-human zealotry, from which craziness and its associated nastiness emerges.
The 70's may be over but, as this issue illustrates, the bad ideas it left us didn't end with Disco.
Posted by Doug Williams on
Monday February 9, 2009 at 4:37pm
