In politics, it's considered foolish if you change your mind about something. But in science, art and philosophy, it's considered a virtue to have an open mind.
Someone referred me to a very interesting article about the future of the environment. In particular, it claims that environmentalists will reverse their positions on four important things in the coming years.
- Population Growth
- Urbanization
- Genetically Engineered Organisms
- Nuclear Power
More below the fold.
Boring Introduction
I will confess that I'm not an environmentalist. I'm not very sentimental about animals, the wilderness, or nature. I love my big cities. I love huge anonymous crowds. I need running water, and something that resembles consumer electronics.
But I've also been a vegetarian for 8 years. I also believe in sustainable use of our resources, rather than short sighted greed. I believe in preventative health. I believe in a foreign policy that doesn't bind our interests to oil tycoons around the world, and a domestic policy that doesn't bind our interests to oil tycoons at home. As such, environmentalists will find me to be very easy to win over.
This article points out the differences between romantics and scientists. I'm very little of the former, and very much of the latter. And noting this dichotomy is contraversial in itself, since the article seems to imply that romantics are getting in the way, even if it praises their passion.
The article is also dangerously optimistic about technological progress.
1 and 2: Population and Urbanization
One of the most radical assertions is that population growth is leveling off. The article claims that population growth peaked in 1968, and growth is decelerating rapidly.
It attributes this to cities. 50% of the world's population lives in cities now, compared to 3% in 1800, and 14% in 1900. The argument is that as women move to the city, they're less likely to have kids, because they're more likely to take on demanding careers, and more likely to abandon fundamentalist religious beliefs. This suggests that cities are part of the solution, not part of the problem.
According to the article, the classic environmentalist hates cities and fears population growth. It asserts that population is doing just fine, and urbanization is good for the environment.
... And this is the tame stuff. Wait until you get to the real contraversial stuff.
3: Biotechnology
This article asserts that the best way to control a dangerous technology is to embrace it, rather than condemn it. A very telling attack -- on folks like me, for that matter -- is that people on the left fear biotechnology because its largest proponents are corporate.
Let me entertain this for a minute.
The industrial era luddites were not all romantics. They saw industry as providing a new way to exploit humanity and destroy the earth. They saw it as a manifestation of blind, destructive greed. It wasn't so much that they just loved a good old fashioned romp in the village, but that they saw that that alternative was having negative impacts on peoples' health and happiness.
The machine-busting movement in the 19th century had a significant following before the movement was finally crushed. From its ashes rose the new left that sought to control the technology rather than destroy it. To punctuate this VERY short history lesson, this is where the labor movement -- with unions, laws, and protections -- came from.
I'm disgusted when I hear about terminator genes being used as a way to force farmers to re-purchase seeds every season. But even if I acknowledge that it's possible to keep greed out of biotechnology, I'm still reluctant to embrace man-made viruses as a way to control reckless population growth among animal species.
And yet, if we were more concerned about the safety and reliability of these "artificial viruses" instead of the corporate concern of being first to market, maybe there's a hope. Just like the luddites from centuries past, maybe the answer is to actively control technology, rather than push it away and into the hands of the greedy.
... and then I ask myself, do we really want to start making our own viruses?
4: Nuclear Power
Finally, the article asserts that Nuclear Power has gotten a bad rap. Of course, the carnage and death associated with Nuclear Meltdown is something that's hard to forget. But the insists that Nuclear Power is the cleanest, most feasible alternative to fossil fuels.
We've mastered technologies from fire to electricity, and yet there is still the occasional disaster. Playing with fire is one thing. Playing with the power of the atom is something else. The further we go along, the less we can afford to be wrong.
What does it all mean?
I really can't say.
I've read a million studies that all contradict each other. Sprawl is gradually eroding more and more of our land. And yet, there may be hope to lure more people into those urban centers. And there have always been opponents to Malthus who have asserted how economic progress can slow population growth. You can even talk about how technology has the potential to save us all.
I'm optimistic because I believe we CAN solve these problems.
I'm pessimistic because I believe we WON'T solve these problems.
But if there's one theme that would tie together the optimists and the pessimists, it's as follows.
The Lesson (?)
Technology keeps on coming, no matter how abhorrent its implications. There's no precedent for ever having stopped an innovation.
Prohibition has never worked. In fact, it seems the more people push for prohibition, the more unconstrained those greedy people are. With people caught up in fighting over "yes or no", there's no fight over what "yes" means, allowing unrestricted greed to flourish.
What has worked is when the people note something's potential for both good and evil, and push for accountability and responsibility.
Is urbanization good for us? Is biotechnology? Is nuclear power? There may be more harm done if the left says "no" than if we say "yes".
The real answer depends on our ability to demand accountability.
