Re: [asa] A Sustainable Future

Ken, it seems to me that the Smail article just rehashes the Malthusian
fallacy that technology must remain static while population grows. For
example, Smail says this: *"Clearly, assertions that the Earth might be
able to support a population of 10 to 15 billion people for an indefinite
period of time at a standard of living superior to the present are not only
cruelly misleading but almost certainly false." * Why is this so clear and
certain? Smail doesn't say. (Rhetorically, whenever someone uses the words
"clearly" and "certainly" in the same sentence, it's likely that the actual
evidence is neither clear nor certain).

It's quite possible that agricultural biotechnology will indeed enable us to
feed 10 to 15 billion people indefinitely; it's also quite possible that
communications technology will facilitate a global economy in which that
many people; and it's also quite possible that new technology will
substantially change the "peak energy" curve. The market demand for all
this will continue to grow (with population growth), and market demand tends
to drive technological progress. At the very least, it seems impossible to
say what is "clear" or "certain" to be the case 50, 100 or 150 years from
now technologically. Moreover, technological progress and diffusion tends
to result in a reduction in average birth rates, as people move from
traditional agricultural societies into more advanced technological ones.

On the flip side, I get deeply concerned about arguments that suggest "we"
must begin acting to control population. Population control policies tend
to go hand in hand with totalitarian regimes and the burdens of such
policies tend to fall most heavily on poor, disenfranchised populations,
including women in rural communities -- China being Exhibit A. Folks like
Smail seem to suggest that "we" ought to curtail fundamental liberties
involving human sexuality and procreation in order to avert a tragedy of a
commons that can't be adequately defined without knowing what future
technology will look like. I have a very hard time swallowing that kind of
claim.

-- 
David W. Opderbeck
Associate Professor of Law
Seton Hall University Law School
Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Kenneth Piers <Pier@calvin.edu> wrote:
> Friends; I know that almost the entire conversation on this listserve is
> devoted to the creation-evolution-design debate but let me make a small
> effort to broaden the discussion to issues that affect our lives today at
> least as directly.
> Here is a link to an essay by Kenneth Smail addressing population issues
> and the future of civilization that I found worth reading. I think Prof.
> Smail comes close to hitting the nail squarely on the head. If he is at all
> correct, how should Christians, and especially Christian scientists respond
> to this challenge?
> >Confronting the inevitable: Population reduction, voluntary and otherwise<
> by Kenneth Smail
>
> http://culturechange.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=168&Itemid=2#cont
>
> I also recommend to you, if you have not already seen it or even if you
> have, the video Arithmetic, Population, and Energy (it is in 8 parts
> available on youtube - link below) on understanding exponential growth by
> Prof Al Bartlett (prof Emeritus, Physics, U of Colorado) which is also quite
> relevant for the pressing issues facing civilization addressed by Prof Smail
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY
>
> Respectfully,
> Ken Piers
>
> Ken Piers
>
> "We are by nature creatures of faith, as perhaps all creatures are; we live
> by counting on things that cannot be proved. As creatures of faith, we must
> choose either to be religious or superstitious, to believe in things that
> cannot be proved or to believe in things that can be disproved."
> Wendell Berry
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.