One of the most painful things to read is someone arguing badly and wrongly for something you believe in. Ju
st as creationists like this are the best possible advert for militant atheism, this article from the economist blog on why population doesn't matter is enough to make you believe that radical population control measures are the only solution to the environmental problems of the planet. The economist runs a blog on its website that it calls ‘green.view’, but is usually used to explain why environmental issues don’t matter. In this case, the column was a response to the sackloads of mail they received from people objecting to their front cover about population shrinkage, who variously suggested shrinking populations "are a reason to cheer", and that cap-and-trade birth permits are the only way to ensure our future.
This is an issue which has often been called the 'elephant in the drawing room' of environmentalism, as few have dared to talk about it, and those that do are often quickly sidelined as their conclusions are so unpopular. I have thought about the issue a lot, and have a few reasons to believe that we do not need to take radical action to prevent people giving birth. The economist blogger clearly did not think about it much, and so came up with the following argument:
Carbon Emissions in poor countries only increased by 2% per year between 1990 and 2002, while in rich countries emissions increased from 11.8 tonnes per head to 12.8 tonnes per head, with population fairly stable. Now this comparison sounds like good evidence for their argument at first glance, but you can normally expect the Economist to give more than just a glance to an argument, and any economist (small e) should be able to see that 2% a year over 12 years is almost 27%, while an increase from 11.8 to 12.8 is just 8.5%. In other words, the percentage increase in carbon emissions was much greater in developing countries than in developed, and as tackling climate change is very much a long term game, it is these broad trends that make the difference. Their major point 'lighten the footprint, but keep the feet', leaves you thinking, 'but surely it would be better to lighten the footprint AND lose some feet', because though they throw about some statistics to show that there is little correlation between population growth and emissions, their view is still that each person is essentially negative for the world, rather that each person can add something. Without this idea, it is impossible not to agree with the doom-mongerers and population fascists, but I think that each human can add more than he takes. Here's why:
The key to the future are the human qualities of Innovation, Invention and Imagination, the qualities that Julian Simon calls the Ultimate Resource. Without considering these factors, than Malthus's logic stands up, and our future can only be Malthusian, with shortages causing war, famine, disease and environmental destruction. However, it is easy to forget the most important fact of the past two hundred years - MALTHUS WAS WRONG. Two hundred years after he predicted widespread destruction, there are more people, living with more health, wealth and education than ever before (watch this amazing video to see the trends of development of the last fifty years). This must be the most important trend of human history, and understanding it is crucial for our future. A more recent example of the shortcomings of malthusian logic illustrates why he was wrong:
In the 1960s, a chap called Ehrlich wrote a book called "the population bomb" which stated "the battle to feed all of humanity is over ... In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now". He was taken up on his predictions by Julian Simon in 1980, who asked him to put his money where his mouth was and offered him a wager - Erlich was to choose five metals whose price they would bet on over ten years. If the prices went up, then Simon would pay the difference to Erlich, if they went down, then vice versa. Erlich gleefully accepted, and chose his metals - copper, chromium, nickel, tin, and tungsten. The logic seemed clear - demand for copper was increasing as more and more electrics were being used, while the supply was fast running out. How could he possibly lose?
When the bet ended, in 1990, after the decade with the biggest population rise in all history, the prices of every single metal had fallen in real terms, and Erlich owed $575. He had failed to predict the new technologies that would change the way all the metals were used. For copper, fiber optics replaced many of the electrical uses, while better extraction technologies made supply more plentiful.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrlich-Simon_bet).
The message of this story is clear to me - human ingenuity and innovation will change our future immeasurably, and though we cannot for a moment be complacent about our own abilities, it is this factor that means that each human can add more than he takes away from the planet, and pave the way for a sustainable future. Encouraging and realising this potential for innovation must be the aim of every person everywhere if we are to address the challenges that lie ahead.
st as creationists like this are the best possible advert for militant atheism, this article from the economist blog on why population doesn't matter is enough to make you believe that radical population control measures are the only solution to the environmental problems of the planet. The economist runs a blog on its website that it calls ‘green.view’, but is usually used to explain why environmental issues don’t matter. In this case, the column was a response to the sackloads of mail they received from people objecting to their front cover about population shrinkage, who variously suggested shrinking populations "are a reason to cheer", and that cap-and-trade birth permits are the only way to ensure our future.This is an issue which has often been called the 'elephant in the drawing room' of environmentalism, as few have dared to talk about it, and those that do are often quickly sidelined as their conclusions are so unpopular. I have thought about the issue a lot, and have a few reasons to believe that we do not need to take radical action to prevent people giving birth. The economist blogger clearly did not think about it much, and so came up with the following argument:
Carbon Emissions in poor countries only increased by 2% per year between 1990 and 2002, while in rich countries emissions increased from 11.8 tonnes per head to 12.8 tonnes per head, with population fairly stable. Now this comparison sounds like good evidence for their argument at first glance, but you can normally expect the Economist to give more than just a glance to an argument, and any economist (small e) should be able to see that 2% a year over 12 years is almost 27%, while an increase from 11.8 to 12.8 is just 8.5%. In other words, the percentage increase in carbon emissions was much greater in developing countries than in developed, and as tackling climate change is very much a long term game, it is these broad trends that make the difference. Their major point 'lighten the footprint, but keep the feet', leaves you thinking, 'but surely it would be better to lighten the footprint AND lose some feet', because though they throw about some statistics to show that there is little correlation between population growth and emissions, their view is still that each person is essentially negative for the world, rather that each person can add something. Without this idea, it is impossible not to agree with the doom-mongerers and population fascists, but I think that each human can add more than he takes. Here's why:
The key to the future are the human qualities of Innovation, Invention and Imagination, the qualities that Julian Simon calls the Ultimate Resource. Without considering these factors, than Malthus's logic stands up, and our future can only be Malthusian, with shortages causing war, famine, disease and environmental destruction. However, it is easy to forget the most important fact of the past two hundred years - MALTHUS WAS WRONG. Two hundred years after he predicted widespread destruction, there are more people, living with more health, wealth and education than ever before (watch this amazing video to see the trends of development of the last fifty years). This must be the most important trend of human history, and understanding it is crucial for our future. A more recent example of the shortcomings of malthusian logic illustrates why he was wrong:
In the 1960s, a chap called Ehrlich wrote a book called "the population bomb" which stated "the battle to feed all of humanity is over ... In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now". He was taken up on his predictions by Julian Simon in 1980, who asked him to put his money where his mouth was and offered him a wager - Erlich was to choose five metals whose price they would bet on over ten years. If the prices went up, then Simon would pay the difference to Erlich, if they went down, then vice versa. Erlich gleefully accepted, and chose his metals - copper, chromium, nickel, tin, and tungsten. The logic seemed clear - demand for copper was increasing as more and more electrics were being used, while the supply was fast running out. How could he possibly lose?
When the bet ended, in 1990, after the decade with the biggest population rise in all history, the prices of every single metal had fallen in real terms, and Erlich owed $575. He had failed to predict the new technologies that would change the way all the metals were used. For copper, fiber optics replaced many of the electrical uses, while better extraction technologies made supply more plentiful.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrlich-Simon_bet).
The message of this story is clear to me - human ingenuity and innovation will change our future immeasurably, and though we cannot for a moment be complacent about our own abilities, it is this factor that means that each human can add more than he takes away from the planet, and pave the way for a sustainable future. Encouraging and realising this potential for innovation must be the aim of every person everywhere if we are to address the challenges that lie ahead.
