TIME HAS COME TODAY: Global Population and Consumption
Summary
TLDRIn 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
🌏 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.
🌱 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.
🌿 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.
🏛️ 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.
🌱 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.
📚 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.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Population
💡Environmental Disaster
💡Sustainable Development
💡Biodiversity
💡Resource Depletion
💡Catastrophe
💡Consumption
💡Overconsumption
💡Environmentalism
💡Catastrophe Theory
💡Technological Optimism
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
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)