Those Who Predict the Collapse of Human Civilization Have Been Wrong In the Past. But Does That Mean They’re Wrong Now?
Frequent commenter MarcoPolo writes in response to my piece “Ian Bremmer’s Frightening Position on Climate Change” as follows: For the entire history of human civilization, an impending apocalypse has been an enormously popular prediction. The fact that none has actually occurred, and the human race trundles on growing more prosperous, more in control of its destiny, ever expanding its scientific and technical knowledge, never daunts the doomsayers.
I hear you, but let me point out the fact that the “doomsayers” haven’t been right so far does not imply that they’re not right today.
In fact, there’s plenty of evidence that our civilization could be headed for catastrophe. Our population actually is in the process of quintupling (from 2 billion to 10 billion) in a period of only 100 years, and the temperature of the Earth actually is increasing. If one wishes to live in a constant temperature, one needs to move north (or south in the southern hemisphere) 600 meters each year. It’s hard to argue that this isn’t going to put enormous pressure on food supplies, not to mention other environmental damage, like loss of biodiversity.
I don’t find anything implausible about Elizabeth Kolbert’s book “The Sixth Extinction,” whose thesis is that life on this planet has met disaster five times in the past, and no reasonable person doubts that there are conditions today that suggest one more could be in the offing.
Yet you seem to be saying that there is no reason for alarm, and thus no imperative to make changes to our behavior vis-a-vis the environment. Having known you these many years, I have to say that you’re capable of better thinking than that.
Now, one can have a terrific debate about how draconian these measures need to be. Personally, I think we need a concerted global push for exactly three things:
• Phasing out fossil fuels as rapidly as practically possible, via efficiency solutions, renewable energy, advanced nuclear, etc.
• Improving/reducing animal husbandry as it applies to the production of meat.
• Family planning in the developing world, consisting of education and universally available contraception.
Making this happen will not be a piece of cake politically, but, once begun, it will be almost completely painless. The first of the three will create a net stimulation to the world economy, and the other two will result in happier, healthier people. Seems like a good deal to me.
I grant that there are going to be a few large interests/forces that will be hurt in this process, e.g., the oil companies, agribusiness and the dogma of the Catholic Church; in fact, this is the principal reason none of this has happened in any significant volume so far.
Will we have the guts to stand up to these interests? So far, it appears that the answer is “no,” but only time will tell.
Speculative writings are, for myself, the best stimulus to imagination of the possible. I do not, however, adhere to the various notions of prediction based on interpolation of past data or statistical analysis of past data when it comes to macro level events. While I cannot reasonably argue against “unicorn” type events presuming they will or will not occur, I find it unreasonable to base any form of planning on such occurrences.
As one from the sciences, I am dismayed by that fraction of the lay public that believes we can legislate and/or schedule scientific discovery. Manhattan project mentality seems to be entrenched in our thinking, and that can become a crutch fraught with danger.
That said, the young person still resident in the recesses of my consciousness wants to believe in unlimited energy, FTL travel, the federation of planets scenario, etc., and as such, my thinking is gravitationally drawn to the hopeful. I will always ponder on the tension between these two forces and wonder at what the appropriate balance might be.
Whether it be a joyous or draconian path to our secular salvation, the poor choice would seem to be the one where we refuse to acknowledge the need to choose.
Despite your misgivings, Ian Bremmer’s comments are a positive sign. He acknowledges that global warming and climate change are real and potentially disastrous. Clearly his comments about North Sea oil and Greenland farmland place private interests above public interests in calling them “positive” developments. However, acknowledging the problem is the beginning of solving the problem.
What is needed is education and strong public policy. Just as Israel went from a water shortage to a water surplus through conservation, water recycling and desalination plants and even reforestation of desert areas, we can do the same for water, food, and energy. Solutions exist – Israel’s water solutions, plant-based diets and meats, electric and hybrid cars and trucks, and solar and wind energy that costs less than natural gas and coal (2.5 and 3.5 cents/kWh respectively).
Continue to educate policy buffs like Mr. Bremmer and watch policy change.
Oops, I reversed the wind and solar costs.
Past predictions of disaster have usually been based on theology, not science. Now scientists are predicting disaster, based on science rather than theology. There is good reason to believe that they are right even though the exact details are not yet knowable.
As to beliefs that unlimited growth and energy are possible, obviously they are wrong. However, using more advanced nuclear technology, we should be able to have considerably more energy available to us than we have now. If that is used sensibly, it can greatly help us deal with climate change and to a certain extent limit its consequences. As to population growth, there are indications that when people are well educated and have acceptable and adequate means to limit the size of their families, population growth ceases.
In answer to your specific question – yes of course the doomsayers views are absurd, and not worthy of further consideration.
LOL! It must feel good to be so certain. Sometimes I Wish I could have a little of that…..
Craig,
Let’s look at the evidence which you cite to support your prediction of impending doom.
1) The doomsday predictions of apocalyptic prophets such as Club of Rome, M.King Hubbert, Paul Ehrlich in his book ‘The Population Bomb’ Margaret Sanger’s call for eugenics or Lester Brown’s “Full Planet, Empty Plate” and even Elizabeth Kolbert’s have all become discredited with time.
Not because impending apocalyptic visions were averted by draconian social engineering or rigid social planning but simply because they authors misunderstood the flexible nature of human society and resourcefulness of the human species, while completely miscalculating the “science”.
To use just one example, the 2015 census in Italy,( that most Catholic of nations) reveals the natural increase in population is negative ! The number of deaths exceeded the number of live births by 63 381. (In fact without the children of largely Muslim migrants it would be even lower).
Oh, and Italian consumption of red meat has been increasing each year since 1982 (Italians are getting bigger, but fewer :)!
2) There’s nothing exceptional or particularly objectionable to your three point plan, except that it’s vague and somewhat conflicting.
Vegetarianism and renewable energy are two entirely separate issues. When you combine these two issues with population control you embark upon a campaign which must inevitably alienate, confuse and distract from those who support one concept but not others.
This has always been the problem with futurists, prophets, academics and elitists of all sorts and persuasions. Vagueness about how these aims are to be implemented, lack of detail regarding practicability, suggests these otherwise innocuous objectives may disguise a more sinister and coercive political agenda.
Doomsday and urgent apocalyptic prophesies have always been advanced to rally irrational belief and justify extraneous actions only loosely associated with the main agenda.
Grandiose demands, draconian decrees and vilification of unpopular sections of society are invariably justified by “saving” civilization from peril. (accompanied by hysterical cries of “who’ll save the children”).
It wouldn’t matter but it distracts from the real task of helping to develop, introduce and gain acceptance for Clean(er) Technology.
As long as doomsayers can spurn small progress as valueless in the face of the impending storm, apocalyptic dreamers like Cameron etc, can justify not buying an electric vehicle.
As long as the apocalyptic urgency is maintained, urgency will dictate the creation of inadequate, ill-conceived technologies requiring huge subsidies and economic cost. These technologies can rapidly grow so large that not only are they very disruptive to disengage, but actively suppress better technologies.
Just wanting something to be true, doesn’t make it true.
Marcopolo, what on earth has happened to your “sniff meter”?
You said: “This has always been the problem with futurists, prophets, academics and elitists of all sorts and persuasions. Vagueness about how these aims are to be implemented, lack of detail regarding practicability, suggests these otherwise innocuous objectives may disguise a more sinister and coercive political agenda.”
And Adam said to Eve: “Eve why don’t you accompany me on a walk through the forest to see the wonderful collection of natures colourful flowers?”
See the connection? Common Marcopolo – let’s just concede that somethings are simply hardwired into we fragile humans, and you covered just about every one of those human traits quite exquisitely in your post.
But despite all that funny stuff – you haven’t enriched the climate change through natural market forces debate (which I endorse) one iota.
But I enjoyed your rant anyway.
Lawrence Coomber
Hi Lawrence,
My “rant” was aimed at doomsayers and fellow travelers.
Of course you are quite correct, there are lots of more positive influences and innovations that will arise to address environmental issues.
That’s the whole point, it’s only by ensuring an expanding and healthy economy we can afford to institute reform and new technology.
Market forces will certainly play a major part, but governments and the community also have a role in encouraging new technology and eliminating environmental harmful practices.
Each time I hear of projects, such as you are developing, my faith and optimism in human resilience is endorsed. Free enterprise and creativity is far more progressive than grim apocalyptic predictions and the draconian repression of ideological doctrines.
We should meet future challenges with excitement and enthusiasm, not grim despair and pessimism. I don’t care about conspiracy theories, if I see better technology, I’ll adopt it, then sell it. ! I’ll beat my opposition in the competitive marketplace.
What I won’t do is sit around bleating how dismal is the future, and proposing grandiose schemes to suit my authoritarian doctrines.
(end rant:)