Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970922060037.0091a630@aloha.net> Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 06:00:37 -1000 From: Jay Hanson <mailto:j@QMAIL.COM> Subject: www.dieoff.org/page110.htm To: mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU
At 11:47 AM 9/22/97 +0200, V.Dimitroff wrote:>The quoted W. Rees article and all the sources quoted therein do NOT
>prove such a statement. After pages of quiasi-scientific arguments
>(where nearly-mathematical formulae are based on dozens of assumptions,
>most of them questionable), the author reaches a "Conclusion" which
>states NOTHING! There is no scientific statement in the conclusion, only
You can download the spreadsheets at: http://www.ecouncil.ac.cr/rio/focus/report/english/footprint/ Please doublecheck their calculations.
>green-evangelist rhetoric (appropriate for a journalist, not for a
>scientist) - which leaves the reader wondering what the whole article
>wanted to prove.
I thought the article was quite clear: We have overshot the carrying capacity of Earth. This leaves us with two choices:
#1. We can REDUCE the load on our life-support systems our way.
#2. Nature WILL REDUCE our load her way.
There are NO other alternatives.
>Many people blindly embrace and repeat such groundless statements, not
>realising the HARM they cause to the environmental cause (of which this
>humble poster is an ardent supporter).
A humbll poster and ardent supporter might consider some of the endlessly-repeated, groundless statements made by economists:
"Adam Smith's key insight was that both parties to an exchange can benefit and that, so long as cooperation is strictly voluntary, no exchange will take place unless both parties do benefit" [p. xv, Milton and Rose Friedman, FREE TO CHOOSE; AVON, 1979; ISBN 0-380-52548-8]
Although Friedman is one of the most influential economists of the twentieth century, he is lying, economists do not even define the word "benefit" -- let alone measure it.
I can understand why you are upset. One has to be a philosopher at heart to be willing to challenge one's core "beliefs". But remember, the futures of our children and grandchildren depend on the accuracy of present economic "beliefs" and our willingness to question them.
Our present paradigm shift is, in many ways, like the Copernican shift. Before Copernicus' time, knowledge was based on "authority" (reading scriptures or philosophical tracts). In contrast, the new knowledge was "empirical" (by scientific observation and experiment). Ultimately of course, science defeated religious dogma.
In the same manner today, economists have not observed anyone "maximizing utility", nor have they observed a "rational man", yet defend them with passion -- ALL based on authority.
Galileo's telescope was the turning point:
"There were only two possibilities open: One was to refuse to look through the telescope or to refuse to accept what one saw when one did; the other was to reject the physics of Aristotle and the old geocentric astronomy of Ptolemy." [p. 78] I. Bernard Cohen, THE BIRTH OF A NEW PHYSICS; Norton, 1985 ISBN 0-393-30045-5
Once again, society has two possibilities. Refuse to look into the scientific telescope and cling to existing economic "beliefs". Or to grow and learn in the light of scientific observations.
The choice is ours.
Jay ---------------------------------------------------------
In 1992, both the US National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society of London warned in a joint statement that science and technology may NOT be able to save us:
"If current predictions of population growth prove accurate and patterns of human activity on the planet remain unchanged, science and technology may not be able to prevent either irreversible degradation of the environment or continued poverty for much of the world."
"The future of our planet is in the balance. Sustainable development can be achieved, but only if irreversible degradation of the environment can be halted in time. The next 30 years may be crucial."
Never before in history had the two most prestigious groups of scientists in the world issued a joint statement!
Now, five of these years are gone, and global devastation is still increasing exponentially while economists relentlessly drive billions towards their deaths.
If economists ignore the science because they don't like the messenger, well, ... [ fill in the blanks with something non-threating ] . . . in another thread, mailto:leedean@ix.netcom.com wrote:
" Humans are the only animals known to self-deceive. There is no evidence to suggest that any other species besides our own possesses this capability. At a conference of the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences in 1991, Washington University anthropologist Robert Sussman said, 'Self-deception is what separates us qualitatively from all other animals and even early hominids.'" " Abstract reasoning is the second form of thinking and is found in only a few species: humans, chimps, gorillas, dolphins, etc. Since an intentional lie is an abstraction, only animals with brains complex enough for abstract reasoning can intentionally deceive. A chimpanzee is a notorious liar. But it takes the even more complex brain of a human to self-deceive. Self-deception is a relative newcomer on the behavioral scene. It didn't help make us human. Self-deception didn't exist until human brains reached their current level of complexity. In short, self-deception had no part in making us--we made self-deception."