TIME HAS COME TODAY: Global Population and Consumption

Summary

In this episode of 'Uncommon Knowledge,' Peter Robinson moderates a debate between Steven Hayward and Paul Ehrlich on the sustainability of Earth's resources amidst a growing population. Ehrlich, author of 'One with Nineveh,' argues that overpopulation and excessive consumption are depleting the planet's resources, while Hayward, a fellow at the Pacific Research Institute, contends that human ingenuity and technological advancements can sustainably address these challenges. The discussion covers topics like biodiversity loss, climate change, and the role of economic growth in environmental protection.

Takeaways

• 🌍 The discussion revolves around the sustainability of Earth's resources with the projected peak in human population expected to reach 8-9 billion.
• 📚 Thomas Malthus' 18th-century predictions of environmental disaster due to overpopulation and resource scarcity are revisited in the context of modern environmental challenges.
• 🔄 Steven Hayward argues against the notion that we're living off natural capital, suggesting that human ingenuity has historically allowed us to adapt and find solutions to environmental issues.
• 🌱 Paul Ehrlich emphasizes the ongoing depletion of biodiversity, fertile soils, and groundwater, which he sees as critical resources being consumed unsustainably.
• 📉 Ehrlich points out that despite some positive trends, such as declining birth rates in certain areas, the overall human population growth still poses significant challenges to sustainability.
• 🌐 The conversation highlights the global nature of environmental issues, such as climate change, which requires international cooperation and awareness.
• 🚗 Hayward provides historical examples of how societal shifts, like the transition from horses to cars, have had both positive and negative environmental impacts over time.
• 🌿 The potential for improving agricultural productivity and preserving biodiversity through targeted conservation efforts is discussed as a hopeful sign for the future.
• 💡 The role of technology and innovation in addressing environmental challenges is acknowledged, with the suggestion that new solutions can mitigate some of the negative impacts of consumption.
• 🌳 Hayward proposes the protection of biodiversity hotspots as a critical and feasible environmental initiative that should be prioritized.
• 🌿 Ehrlich calls for a comprehensive assessment of human behavior similar to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to address environmental issues on a global scale.

Q & A

What was the main topic of discussion in the 'Uncommon Knowledge' episode featuring Paul Ehrlich and Steven Hayward?

The main topic of discussion was the relationship between the growing human population, consumption, and the sustainability of the planet's resources, with a focus on whether the Earth can support the projected population growth without leading to environmental disaster.

What is Thomas Malthus known for in the context of this discussion?

Thomas Malthus is known for his 18th-century predictions about the growing human population and its potential to outstrip food resources, leading to environmental disaster.

What is the significance of the book 'The Population Bomb' by Paul Ehrlich?

The book 'The Population Bomb' is significant as it brought attention to the issue of overpopulation and its potential consequences on the environment and resource scarcity.

What does Paul Ehrlich argue in his book 'One with Nineveh'?

In 'One with Nineveh', Paul Ehrlich argues that the world suffers from too many people, too much consumption by the well-off, and a maldistribution of power, which are unsustainable and lead to environmental degradation.

What is the 'population momentum' mentioned by Paul Ehrlich?

Population momentum refers to the tendency for population growth to continue even after fertility rates have declined, due to the age structure of the population and the fact that a large number of people are in their childbearing years.

What is the concept of 'living on capital' as discussed by the guests?

The concept of 'living on capital' refers to the idea that humanity is using up natural resources faster than they can be renewed or replaced, which is not sustainable in the long term.

How does Steven Hayward counter the argument that we are overconsuming the Earth's resources?

Steven Hayward argues that human ingenuity and innovation have historically allowed for the development of new resources and technologies that have improved our ecological profile, suggesting that we can continue to find sustainable solutions.

What is the significance of biodiversity in the context of this discussion?

Biodiversity is significant because it represents the variety of life on Earth and is crucial for ecosystem services such as pollination, soil health, and climate regulation. The loss of biodiversity can have severe consequences for the environment and human well-being.

What is the 'biological hotspot' concept mentioned by Steven Hayward?

The 'biological hotspot' concept refers to areas with high concentrations of biodiversity that are under threat. Protecting these areas is seen as a critical strategy for conserving species and ecosystem services.

What is the fundamental equation AI = P * T * C that Paul Ehrlich discusses?

The fundamental equation AI = P * T * C represents the environmental impact (AI) as a function of population (P), affluence (T), and technology (C). It suggests that impact is a product of these three factors and is used to discuss the drivers of environmental degradation.

What is the criticism of Michael Crichton's view on environmentalism as presented in the discussion?

The criticism is that Michael Crichton views environmentalism as a religion, suggesting that it is based more on faith and values than on scientific facts. This is countered by the guests who argue that environmental concerns are grounded in scientific evidence and analysis.

Outlines

00:00

🌏 Population and Resource Debate

The discussion begins with an introduction to the topic of overpopulation and resource scarcity, referencing the theories of Thomas Malthus. The show's guests, Steven Hayward and Paul Ehrlich, present contrasting views on the sustainability of the planet with a growing human population. Ehrlich argues that we are overpopulating and overconsuming, leading to environmental degradation, while Hayward believes that human ingenuity and technological advancements can sustainably address these challenges.

05:01

🌱 Biodiversity and Resource Management

This segment delves deeper into the issues of biodiversity loss and the management of natural resources. Ehrlich emphasizes the depletion of critical resources like soil and water, and the global impact of issues such as climate change. Hayward counters by discussing historical examples of how societies have adapted and found solutions to environmental challenges, suggesting that human innovation can lead to sustainable development.

10:04

🌿 Environmental Impact and Consumption

The conversation shifts to the impact of human consumption on the environment. Ehrlich argues that the United States, due to its high per capita consumption, contributes disproportionately to environmental damage. Hayward disagrees with the assumption that consumption inherently equals environmental harm, suggesting that some forms of consumption can be beneficial and that economic growth can lead to improved environmental quality.

15:05

🏛️ The Role of Freedom and Democracy in Environmentalism

This part of the discussion explores the relationship between political systems and environmental sustainability. Hayward suggests that the United States exemplifies a model of environmental progress through its democratic system and free market, while Ehrlich expresses concern that the pursuit of economic growth sometimes overlooks the importance of environmental conservation.

20:07

🌱 Protecting Biodiversity and Environmental Reform

The final segment focuses on potential reforms and actions to address environmental challenges. Ehrlich advocates for the protection of biodiversity hotspots, emphasizing the need for immediate action. Hayward proposes the establishment of a global assessment mechanism to evaluate human behavior and its impact on the environment, suggesting that international cooperation is key to finding solutions.

25:08

📚 The Future of Environmentalism and Human Survival

In the concluding part, the guests are asked to predict the likelihood of an environmental catastrophe within the next century. Ehrlich expresses a high probability of such an event if current trends continue, while Hayward is more optimistic, believing in the potential for human innovation and societal change to prevent disaster. The discussion ends with a call for increased public awareness and engagement on environmental issues.

Keywords

💡Population

Population refers to the total number of individuals of a particular species living together at a given time in a particular area. In the video, the concern is over whether the Earth can sustain the projected peak human population of eight or nine billion. The discussion highlights historical predictions of overpopulation leading to environmental disaster, as proposed by Thomas Malthus in the 18th century, and whether these concerns are more or less valid in the 21st century.

💡Environmental Disaster

Environmental disaster is a catastrophic event resulting in significant negative environmental consequences, such as loss of biodiversity or depletion of natural resources. The video discusses the historical predictions of such disasters due to overpopulation and resource consumption, questioning if these predictions are becoming more valid in the face of current global challenges.

💡Sustainable Development

Sustainable development is the idea of meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It is mentioned in the video as a key concept in the debate over how human societies can continue to grow and develop without depleting natural resources or causing irreversible environmental damage.

💡Biodiversity

Biodiversity refers to the variety of life on Earth, including the variety within and between species and ecosystems. In the video, the loss of biodiversity is highlighted as a significant concern due to human activities, with the discussion noting that the current rate of species loss is alarming and unsustainable.

💡Resource Depletion

Resource depletion is the reduction of natural resources to a level where they are no longer readily available or have lost their value. The script discusses this in the context of non-renewable resources like oil and coal, and renewable resources such as soil fertility and water, which are being used at unsustainable rates.

💡Catastrophe

Catastrophe, in the context of the video, refers to a sudden disaster or event causing great damage or suffering, often with irreversible effects on the environment or society. The conversation revolves around the potential for environmental catastrophes due to human overpopulation and consumption, and how such events might be mitigated or avoided.

💡Consumption

Consumption in the video refers to the use of resources, goods, and services by individuals and societies. The discussion contrasts the idea of 'too much consumption' in wealthy countries with the potential for sustainable consumption patterns that minimize environmental impact.

💡Overconsumption

Overconsumption is the act of using resources, goods, and services beyond the sustainable level. The video script uses this term to critique the high per capita consumption levels in countries like the United States, which are seen as contributing to environmental degradation and depletion of natural resources.

💡Environmentalism

Environmentalism is a social and political movement that advocates for the protection of the environment and the preservation of natural resources. The video discusses environmentalism as a response to the perceived threats to the environment, including overpopulation and overconsumption.

💡Catastrophe Theory

Catastrophe theory, as mentioned in the video, is a concept in mathematics and systems theory that models how small changes in a system can lead to abrupt, dramatic shifts or catastrophes. The discussion touches on how this theory might apply to environmental systems, where small changes in human activity could lead to significant environmental catastrophes.

💡Technological Optimism

Technological optimism is the belief that technology will solve humanity's problems, including environmental challenges. The video presents a viewpoint that technological advancements and human ingenuity can lead to sustainable solutions and prevent the worst outcomes of environmental degradation.

Highlights

Discussion on whether Earth's resources are sufficient for the projected peak human population of 8-9 billion.

Debate over the validity of Thomas Malthus's population and resource scarcity predictions.

Paul Ehrlich's assertion that overpopulation and overconsumption are unsustainable.

Steven Hayward's counterargument that human ingenuity can overcome resource limitations.

Ehrlich's concern about the global impact of climate change and its ties to consumption.

Hayward's point that past environmental issues have been resolved through innovation.

Debate on the role of biodiversity loss and its implications for sustainability.

Ehrlich's argument that we are already using more than the Earth can sustain.

Hayward's optimism based on historical examples of environmental recovery.

Discussion on the potential for global civilization to push beyond ecological limits.

Ehrlich's emphasis on the importance of addressing overconsumption and its environmental impact.

Hayward's view that economic growth correlates with environmental consciousness and improvement.

The debate over the effectiveness of market mechanisms in addressing environmental issues.

Ehrlich's call for international cooperation to address environmental challenges.

Hayward's suggestion that promoting free trade and democratic capitalism could lead to environmental improvements.

Final thoughts from both guests on the probability of an environmental catastrophe in the next century.

Transcripts

today on uncommon knowledge and

all-consuming fear funding for this

program is provided by the John M Olin

foundation

welcome to uncommon knowledge I'm Peter

Robinson our show today one world but a

human population that's expected to peak

at eight or nine billion is there enough

of planet Earth

to go around ever since Thomas Malthus

the 18th century British economist we've

been hearing predictions that the

growing human population and appetite

for resources would lead to

environmental disaster now in the 21st

century are these arguments more valid

than ever or less so joining us two

guests Steven Hayward is a fellow at the

Pacific Research Institute Paul Ehrlich

is a professor of biological sciences at

Stanford University and the author most

recently of one with Nineveh politics

consumption and the human future in his

1798 study an essay on the principle of

population British economist Thomas

Malthus predicted disease and starvation

arguing that the then industrialized

world would produce a growing population

that would outstrip food resources it

didn't happen was malthus's argument

flawed in and of itself or was his

timing off by a couple of centuries

Stephen I think he was fundamentally

wrong Paul I mean he was fundamentally

right alright well we have a nice

contrast in ready to go from there

alright Paul you argue in one with a

Nineveh that we suffer from I quote you

too many people for the planet to

sustain too much consumption by the

well-off and Mal distribution of power

close quote

let's examine each of those assertions

too many people I quote you to yourself

once again quote because of population

momentum and still high fertility rates

in some areas the race to curb the

global population overshoot is far from

over

close quote explain yourself well we've

had some good news on the population

front there's I think both of you know

and that is birth rates have started to

go down in many areas they go on quite a

ways down in the developed countries

they've started in East Asia which is

one of the places where there

huge numbers of people to go down very

substantially they have not really

started them in sub-saharan Africa the

problem is as the scientific community

knows that we're already using our

capital rather than living on income so

while the news is good that we're going

to stop before the some of the

projections used to be till 12 billion

now it looks like 8 or 9 is much more

likely in the long run 9 billion people

still 3 billion almost more than we have

now it's more people than we had when I

was born on the entire planet in other

words the the growth is going to be as

many people the increment is going to be

as many people as we're living on

capital that's demonstrable that we're

running down resources yeah sure because

we're losing biodiversity this is done

by the way this is the things like oil

and coal and so on are not the important

things that we're running down

they are non-renewable but we're

stopping and going to stop using them

for other reasons but primarily it's

biodiversity especially populations it

is deep rich agricultural soils and it's

groundwater a lot of which is fossil

groundwater for example there is no

potable water left in China and there

were already having wars over the water

that they've got between the farmers in

the petroleum industry because they need

the water for secondary recovery they're

running out of petroleum and the farmers

need the water for irrigation there I

have some points of agreement with the

specifics that Paul mentions especially

about biodiversity and I disagree with

this his broad conclusion or is your

summary conclusion that we're living off

our natural capital but this way I

suspect is perhaps we'll get on to the

issue of sustainable development one of

the ways I put this is if you take a

snapshot picture of human society at any

point in time I can guarantee you that

what you see happening at that time will

be unsustainable you know jr. McNeil who

wrote a great history of environment in

the 20th century put it this way so as

China has been unsustainable for 3,000

years but they're still with us because

things are constantly changing or the

United States is the example I know best

that's why I do my most research on if

you go back a hundred years ago the

United States used to get 1/3 of its

energy from burning wood 5 billion cubic

feet a year there's actually data series

on this that's when Teddy Roosevelt was

warming a warning about a timber phantom

famine excuse me and there was actually

the suggestion that we were going to

have to ban Christmas trees because we

were running

trees so fast and then of course

remember our transportation in was

horses we've all heard of stories about

how New York would drown in manure so

your point is that engine the human mind

human capital ingenuity is almost able

to stay a step or two ahead right and

you don't want to be pollyannish about

that I understand but but the point is

is that if you looked at the American

economy in 1900 you would have said this

is deeply unsustainable and some people

did say that it didn't use that

terminology but they could see this

wasn't working

now the substitutes for it are things

that we worry about deeply today : aisle

for example but they represented at the

time an improvement in our ecological

profile you know we used to use almost a

hundred million acres of land to grow

feed for horses to move things around

now we don't like the car these days if

you're sort of environmentally correct

as I like to say but in fact if if they

did an environmental movement in 1915

and I'd been Henry Ford I would have had

a bumper sticker that said save farmland

drive a car I mean a lot of the rebirth

of the forests in the northeastern

United States can be attributed the rise

of the automobile

well now the automobile is a problem and

it's another I think it's an under

transitional technology a lot of what

you say is perfectly correct I think the

big differences are as we try and point

out and one with nineveh is first of all

for the first time we have a global

civilization that is pushing on its

limits we have lots of examples of

civilizations in the past that didn't

make it ecologically global civilization

you mean simply to many people around

the globe well globally so for example

the problems that the reason we don't

like the car the main reason we don't

like ours this contribution to climate

change and climate is something we're

all tied into nobody knows for sure

what's gonna happen with the climate

except for some relatively minor things

but the scientific community is might be

worried about it and we're all affected

by it and so it's a global situation the

other thing is that we have a scientific

community that is trying to keep

constant track of what's going on

everywhere we have the Intergovernmental

Panel on Climate Change we have the

Millennium ecosystem assessment that's

very much concerned with the loss of

ecosystem services that were just

talking about and so on it's perfectly

correct that in the past there have been

warnings that at least in the short term

you know we did not drown in horse

manure we managed to kill ourselves off

with

with automobiles and I like driving an

automobile and I'm a great consumer

automatic instrument-rated pilot so I'm

a I'm not a Luddite but the problem is I

know one of the few advantages there are

to getting older is that you get some

historical perspective on yourself you

know when I wrote the Population Bomb

people said which you published in 1968

when there were three and a half billion

people there's now almost three billion

more right and people said don't worry

we'll easily be able to take care of

five billion people feed all of them

house all of them give them educational

opportunity give them good food and the

answer is we've now got six point three

at about three billion people I'm not

living a life that any one of us would

hold on a gram but what makes Paul

Ehrlich think things are getting worse

rather than better agronomist Paul

Wagoner this is the kind of thing a

layman discovers if he Google's around

sure agronomist Paul Wagner argues that

if farmers around the world can raise

their productivity to current u.s.

levels and bear in mind that they'll

have 50 years to do so the population

according to the latest UN projections

is expected to peak in about 50 years so

they have so to speak 50 years to do so

at least in this mind experiment they'd

be able to feed 10 billion people using

only half the land now devoted to

agriculture around the world and that's

a billion more than the UN now thinks

we'll have 50 years from now well so

first of all it's true in part and it's

false in front part first of all we

human beings very smart guess what we

did not farm to get the highest yields

the lousy of soils first one of the

reasons the United States is such a

wonderful and successful country is the

deep rich soils that we had in the

present in the Great Plains therefore

there's not a hope in hell as far as any

by I know you can see that in 50 years

the world's productivity will all be

raised to that of the best productivity

we have today but even if it is yes are

the farmers gonna do it I mean it's like

the issue of whether people are gonna

get fed right now if you could divide

the world's food production evenly among

human beings everybody on the basis of

their metabolism every would everybody

could be healthy the issue is what are

the chances of doing that or should we

be planning for a war

which will still have inequities a

distribution well I'm not an agronomist

I look at the historical sistex which

show that food production for the world

has been growing faster than population

there's raging arguments on both sides

of this Paul may very well be right let

me give you a summary statement of why

I'm an optimist about both this and

biodiversity at the end of the day

qualifying optimism by saying that I

have no illusions there's going to be

some catastrophes along the way and

tragic loss of biodiversity we know that

no matter what's done today conservation

international very well respected

environmental groups stunned the

environmental world about two years ago

with a study they sponsored through a

bunch of Harvard scientists that use

satellite imagery of the earth and they

reported this conclusion that 48% of the

world's land mass was wilderness now one

of us didn't mean no people at all but

it meant a very very low population

density actually the same but the same

population density that our Census

Bureau used in the 19th century to

denote the frontier in America about two

people per 10 square miles something

like that all right now some of that

land is our analytical and green

so in some sense that doesn't count

right but those are not negligible

things but then but you combine that

with the work that I know you know from

Edward Wilson and others that an awful

lot of the world's biodiversity could be

conserved in the short run in the long

run if we targeted the hotspots around

the world

I mean hotspots me those were

biodiversity is in the most danger yes

and also where there's the most of oh

that's perfectly correct there all sorts

of things we could be doing I just came

from meeting with two of my colleagues

discussing the issue of how we can by

slightly improving the biodiversity

holding capacity of agricultural areas

we can support a lot of needed

biodiversity there because you got to

remember if you just save the hotspots

we'd all be dead in other words you need

the organism spread over the entire

planet

the fact that in southern Africa you've

got bees to do pollination isn't gonna

do a thing for our alfalfa hold on next

topic in its from too many people too

too much consumption I'm gonna quote you

to yourself again Paul in one with

Nineveh the United States because of its

population size growth rate and high per

capita level of consumption is the

champion consumer of the world each baby

born in the United States on average

will cause fifteen to one

50 times more environmental damage than

a baby born in a very poor country close

quote now you are simply presuming that

consumption equals damage no not

necessarily if you look in detail in

what we said in one with Nineveh or if

you look at the paper we have out coming

in the Journal of economics really is

you're yourself and your wife and uh no

not to my it just also me and the many

economists we've been working on like

Ken arrow here at Stanford who's the

lead author or on an article and are we

consuming too much it's an extremely

difficult part of a problem for a number

of reasons first of all business

economists think oil consumption is good

and we think that's wrong well on the

other hand some consumption is very good

and some is very bad for example if

you're going to spend ten million

dollars on something if you buy a van

Gogh with it you're not really hurting

any doing anything environmentally

damaging if you buy your third executive

jet with it that's a very different

expenditure of money but the issue of

how you decide what consumption is

damaging and what isn't is something

that the finally the technical community

is beginning to look at but it is

clearly a big part of the problem the

notion that the United States somehow is

over consuming is consuming more than

its share as best I can work it out the

United States consumes about a fifth of

the world's overall output but it also

produces about a fifth of the world's

overall knowledge if some of the things

that produces or things like carbon

dioxide as a result of the consumption

and some of that's actually going to say

that if we had color-coded warnings for

gradations of doom saying I would have

upgraded you from doomsayer to mere

gloom Sayer let me read some of your

books all the years old Paul because one

another is not as hot as it's not as

angry and it doesn't feel as urgent as

the popular well look if you if you look

at the Population Bomb or one with

Menifee you'll see they're all read by

my colleagues and one of the reasons

that the population bomb was hot was at

the time there was a beginning and not

in the sale sense no no no I meant hot

yeah right we were very concerned that

this part of the issue wasn't being

looked at it's now been looked at we

know an enormous amount more about the

population situation oh because the last

30 years we haven't taken the same look

yet at consumption because it's trickier

well I think I think Paul does deserve

credit for being the first person to pop

that issue I mean you have to refer to

yourself in that book the Population

Bomb is a part-time propagandist which

is why I'm never quite sure when you're

being provocative to push people's

thinking and when you're serious I mean

literally serious

oh I by the way I was again Don Kennedy

Peter Raven you know they read the book

from cover to cover and approved it in

other words they serious scientists a

whole bunch of them but they're just two

that are now in the National Academy but

the basic point is you and I are both

propagandists what I mean by a

propagandist no it's somebody as

somebody who tries to persuade people to

do something different look at it

differently it's something like that and

I don't want to pull but I think

politics is a big part of being a human

being and we're engaging in politics now

and that's what we ought to be doing go

ahead point of overconsumption let's

assume for the moment that everything

that Paul says is correct about

overconsumption at this moment guard us

of what dynamic changes you can think

about her or I anticipate the next

question is do we really know what to do

about that and that's we're in one with

Nineveh and does not seem to be much

different although it's an alice is

somewhat different in some areas from

his earlier books some of his

prescriptions seem to me quite the same

into a political conservative just as

worrying as they were in the past I mean

there is and this is a general complaint

I have about a lot of environmentalists

not all of them is that there seems to

be precious little worried about the

soap which you might call the human

ecosystem of liberty and freedom Paul

mentions in a couple very brief places

in the book by way too brief that well

you know freedom and democracy it's not

clear how well they relate and then he

goes on to endorse if I can paraphrase

it's the federal department of saying no

but one of the reasons I'm an

environmental optimist even though it's

often considered beyond the pale is I

take exactly the opposite view Paul I

actually think the United States is

providing the example of how the world

is gonna unfold in the 21st century

he'll be appalled to hear that but

here's why I think that I first got

interested in environmental issues

because I grew up in LA and I thought is

actually Paul fought in the Population

Bomb but it's going to be impossible to

solve the smog problem in Los Angeles I

think the way you put in that book was

is all LA already exceeds the carrying

capacity for its air shed and I thought

the same thing I thought when I first

started studying this in graduate school

in the 80s I thought the only way to

solve smog in Lausanne

to depopulate the basin and after all

the Native Americans 500 years ago

supposedly called it the valley of the

smokes I don't know if that's true or

not but that's stories next door it's

urban legend again here we are 20 some

years later a population of la is double

the number of cars on the road and miles

travel has tripled and the smog levels

are down 75% well how did we do that

well it's a long story how we did that

but I can tick off a whole number of

things that we've done forested area the

90s grew by ten million acres Paul

mentions beauty in the LA basin

no no forested area in the United States

grew by 10 million acres in the 1990s

that's a from the Clinton administration

report Paul mentions PCBs in the

environment they're down 92% according

to latest EPA data over the last 25

years well then if these environmental

problems are getting fixed don't people

like Paul Ehrlich deserve some of the

credit what are you suggesting that Paul

is an alarmist or in fact that he's

serving a vital function by raising the

alarm I might say both of those things

actually I'm an alarmist and I also

agree with you for instance one things

that disturbs me about recent trends is

the u.s. got a leg up in world markets

because we had the best environmental

laws in the world to begin with and it

gave our companies a real advantage now

we're seeing the Japanese move in

because we've gotten onto this SUV kick

and so on where and there are ways of

dealing with that both through the

market which is what I would prefer hold

on I don't understand how SUVs well we

were using huge amounts of gas because

the SUVs are unnecessarily in my view

because the SUVs are not under the cafe

standard but how does that help enjoy

international competitiveness oh because

the the Japanese are the ones who are

building the cars of the future and

bringing them in here the Prius and so

on I think they're putting our industry

at a disadvantage for no particular

reason and I would use a market

mechanism I would slowly raise the price

of gasoline that's a great subject to

argue about let me argue a little more

fundamentally this way someone who I'm

sure Paul and I both hold a mutual

regard is Aldo Leopold the author of the

sand County Almanac years and years ago

whose central point was we need to adopt

a land ethic

it's really meant respect for the land

and for wildlife it's a wonderfully

lyrical poetic book but

getting that book he says this these

wonderful wild things of nature would

have no value to us until mechanization

had assured us of a good breakfast see

Paul is you know one of the famous

theorems that he has in this book and

others is the you might say the

environmental equivalent of monetarism

law prisms fundamental equation is MV

equals P P Q footnote C Milton Friedman

Paul's is AI equals P 80 right we're

impact meaning environmental impact

equals the combination of population

affluence and technology but look I mean

I always was saying that affluence is

what leads to both the means to improve

the environment in increasing demand for

environmental quality and also I think

turns out to be the best contraceptive

because the birth rates have fallen fast

in the more affluent countries

let me quote Steven Hayward to you yeah

quote environmental consciousness around

the world correlates chiefly with

economic growth which is why a richer

planet will be a greener planet close

quote so we've dealt with overpopulation

consumption mal distribution of power

now I'm asking you what should be done

about it and Hayward says if you want to

clean up the global environment you

ought to encourage other nations to

participate in the regime of free trade

and democratic capitalism because it'll

make them richer and that will lead to a

cleaner environment well there's a lot

of truth there's a lot of truth in that

and there's a lot of hidden problems in

that making the rest of the world free

for instance if you mean have the whole

world go through the Victorian

Industrial Revolution like we did that's

crazy

if you mean having the Chinese building

some simulations of the kind of

affluence we have using a solar hydrogen

technology and not burning their coal

and so on yeah what we have to do is get

together and discuss these things these

issues you know we're airing these

issues here most people are totally

unaware you can't trust the workings of

the marketplace ah you can press the

workings of the market yourself if the

if the playing field is leveled

everybody quotes a little bit from Adam

Smith's The Wealth of Nations they don't

bother to read his maura Theory of Moral

Sentiments which says what kind of a

society the market is supposed to

operate within you gotta have markets

they're critical last topic a very

critical view of Paul Ehrlich this is

comes from us

recently by medical doctor and novelist

Michael Crichton

now this particular passage is not

directed against you but there are

places my speech where he knows you know

the whole thing okay so here we go get

ready Crichton

now I studied anthropology in college

and one of the things I learned was that

a certain human social structures always

reappear one of those is religion today

one of the most powerful religions in

the Western world is environmentalism

the religion of choice for urban

atheists

there's initially there's an initial

even a state of unity with nature

there's a fall from grace into a state

of pollution and we're all energy

centers unless we seek salvation which

is now called sustainability these

beliefs are not troubled by facts

because they have nothing to do with

facts close quote which is why Paul

still at it even after predicting

starvation that didn't materialize in

the 70s and so on is that really what's

going on you know a lot of the yeah all

right no I say first of all he's correct

in the sense that values are really

central to all of us we're talking about

our values and we should recognize they

were talking about a lot of values

that's number one well for the plan as

far as people who saw his movie the

dressing well know exactly how much he

knows about the biology and the science

most of his speech contains so many

fundamental errors about how the world

works that it would shock you to read a

place Paul in in contemporary American

life this isn't science it's a kind of

appealing to a misplaced impulse toward

religion or it's useful or good place

Paul for us well I'm the idea that

environmentalism is a religion is not a

new theme I've come after long

reflection to think not very much of

that actually although there's certainly

you hear that rhetoric from some kinds

of environmentalists we're very good at

getting a lot of publicity right but

then I talk to a sort of ordinary people

people belong the Wilderness Society in

the Sierra Club and they're much more

common sense about this a lot more

regular churchgoers so they haven't

really substituted Sun worship I think

what happens is we are misled by the

people with the extremes on both sides

of the debate and I think I think I

don't mean to be unkind I think Paul

sometimes fall into the extreme on the

environmental side of the debate

I mean my criticism for example of the

Nineveh imagery he uses and there's been

other people like it like Jared Diamond

wrote about the fall of the Mayan

civilization Harper's last year in very

similar terms pointing out symptoms of

their ecological collapse and he has a

blurb on the back of one with me as I

recall so I mean it seems to me the

criticism that Paul makes of the Michael

Crichton could be made of him in other

words I'm not convinced that we know

whether for example the ecological

collapse of Nineveh or the Mayan

civilization was cause of their collapse

or the effect of other causes that

brought on their collapse or in any

relation it's very hard to untangle so I

mean let's make it a broader point is

that cause and effect in a dynamic world

is very very hard to sort out and and I

were sort of resist generalizations on

either side either the market will solve

it I'm actually believer in politics or

that you know if we don't change today

we're all about to die we alas its

television so we have to wrap it up and

we're talking a book-length we've got to

wrap it up let me ask you each to name

the one reform bring it down to one

reform to be brief and memorable here

that you would most urgent president

with regard to the environment Steve I

would like to see someone I'm not sure

if it's the president or several world

leaders or Congress or the UN or who but

I would like to see someone take up the

biological hotspot idea it is nowhere on

the agenda right now and the main reason

for that is is you might say it's only

20 describe the idea once again very

briefly to protect the rainforest in the

Amazon there and several other areas

that have been identified where you have

the highest concentration of

biodiversity makes perfect sense to me

people like you but Wilson will say well

it's only maybe 20 million dollars could

get the job done maybe true maybe not

the point is it's not just 20 billion

dollars it's 20 billion dollars on top

of a hundred billion we spend for this

on the environment and 200 billion in

private sector costs on that some of

which is not very well prioritized and

because we're all gridlocked over some

of these political fights the idea of

trying to preserve the biodiversity

hotspots

I don't what idea that ought to be

within the grasp of man yes I would like

to see the next president set up a

millennium assessment of human behavior

in some form to be like the internet

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change or the Millennium ecosystem

assessment so we could bring these kinds

of issues to the public discuss the

values discuss

facts have it totally true or a

high-level UN panel would be even better

international discussions ability for

the and to push to make sure we have

media channels of communication that are

very diverse all right

Rudyard Kipling's 1897 poem recessional

quote lo all our pomp of yesterday is

one with Nineveh and tyre or as you

yourself put it in one with Nineveh

quote the very life of our civilization

is now threatened close quote disease

pestilence starvation give me the

probability as you see it that a century

from now humankind will indeed have

suffered an environmental catastrophe

100 percent Oh 10 percent see we differ

Paul Ehrlich and Steven Hayward thank

you very much I'm Peter Robinson for

uncommon knowledge thanks for joining us

we welcome your comments on this week's

show our email address comments at

uncommon knowledge dot TV for more

information about uncommon knowledge

please visit our website wwlp.com

funding for this program was provided by

the John M olan foundation