Re: [asa] A Sustainable Future

On Fri, 16 May 2008, David Opderbeck wrote:

> 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.

We live in a finite world. Therefore the population will not continue to
increase forever, and we can't pump oil forever. Just because dire
predictions have not yet been fulfilled is no reason to assume that they
won't be. Just because we don't like some proposed solution is no reason
to deny that the problems exist. We should be looking for acceptable
solutions as the way to forestall implementation of unacceptable
solutions, but as I recently heard someone say who was critical of the
economic policies of all three U.S. presidential candidates, "Being honest
about the future doesn't win elections."

Gordon Brown (ASA member)

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue May 20 18:04:35 2008