A good example of what David Lawrence describes is the Y2K issue. The problem was identified and although there was disagreement about the seriousness of the problem, millions of dollars were spent addressing it. And on 1 Jan. 2000 there were a few glitches, but for the most part life went on OK. Since there was no great disaster, Y2K has been branded as an enormous hoax and the vast majority of people think that all the money spent fixing the problem was wasted, and that the computer scientists who warned us about the problem were deliberately defrauding the public.
My own impression is that the warnings were valid -- some overstated and some understated -- and the work that went into fixing programs was well spent and avoided serious problems. The amount of effort that I spent rewriting my own programs, and the success rate I achieved, were consistent with this (I used to do a lot of programming in connection with ecosystem modelling). But have you ever heard anyone agree that we responded to the problem correctly? The almost universal consensus is that since the problem was solved, it never existed. Unfortunately this is a lesson that politicians and other decsion-makers have learned too well. There is no reward for successful prevention. If we spend a million dollars to contain an epidemic and are successful, we will be attacked for wasing a million dollars. If we do nothing and the epidemic spreads, then we are no worse off personally. If we evacuate a village because a volcano might blow, we are going to be criticised. If we don't, and 1000 people die, we can write it off as an unpredictable act of g*d. The precautionary approach does not receive a lot of support other than from environmental NGOs, although it has been adopted by some government agencies. If we reduce fish quotas and the stocks recover, we are attacked for reducing them too much. The unpleasant truth is that no matter ow risk-averse individuals might be, society as a whole is not willing to avoid risks. I suspect that part of this relates to the "tragedy of the commons". Individuals do not want to lower their sights for the public good. Bill Silvert PS -- I think it is time to change the subject line, no matter what anyone says! ----- Original Message ----- From: "David M. Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 3:34 PM Subject: Re: Overshoot, Homo colossus, detrivore ecosystem, dirty commies, pestilence, nuclear meltdown etc., ad infinitum. > Tom's cynical statement seems to imply acceptance of an illogical premise: > because we didn't die of all these things, we really had no need to worry. > > There is a big difference between doing nothing to avert a disaster that > never arrives and heeding warnings and taking action that staves off a > disaster or at least mitigates the damage caused by it. The concern might > be unwarranted in the former case -- nothing was done in response, nothing > happened, so the concern may have been a waste of time. > > In the latter case, a risk was perceived, a response was implemented, and > the disaster averted. While some may argue that the concern was > unwarranted, others can argue (possibly more convincingly) that the > response > to the perceived risk was effective. > > A basic thought experiment bears out the fallacy of Tom's apparent > premise. > Let's say you are driving toward an unguarded railroad crossing. You see > warning signal indicating an oncoming train, but decide to run the > crossing > anyway. You beat the train. You could argue that the warning was > unnecessary, that the concern was overblown, but odds are if you continue > to > run the lights, you will in time run out of luck and have a high-speed > meeting with a much larger and dangerous object. > > Now if you see the warning signal and stop, letting the train pass, would > you seriously argue that there was no need for concern? Or would you > argue > that you were not hit by the train because you opted for the prudent > response -- stop and and wait for the train to pass. > > In some of the examples Tom cites below, ultimate destruction never > happened > because we realized the risk and took steps to minimize them -- like > installing the hotline between the White House and Kremlin to avoid > accidental nuclear holocaust. In other cases, they have happened -- like > Chernobyl. In still other cases, Tom seems to assume that because a > disaster didn't happen to him, there was no cause for concern, but I > suspect > the many victims of fire, flood, etc., would beg to differ. > > Dave > > P.S. I agree with Tom, however, in his determination to live as well as > possible despite all the potential sources of death, doom, and destruction > in the world today. > > ------------------------------------------------------ > David M. Lawrence | Home: (804) 559-9786 > 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787 > Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > USA | http: http://fuzzo.com > ------------------------------------------------------ > > "We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo > > "No trespassing > 4/17 of a haiku" -- Richard Brautigan > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Geoffrey Patton > Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 9:46 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Overshoot, Homo colossus, detrivore ecosystem, dirty commies, > pestilence, nuclear meltdown etc., ad infinitum. > > Tom: > > This is a common attitude these days and somewhat understandable. > However, those of us witness to the loss of endangered species, widespread > habitat alteration, and other impacts that seem irreversible beg action > from > us who can see across timespans. > > One thread which seems to hold promise is that of setting future goals, > planning on how to achieve the goals, and taking first steps towards > action. > One example is the U.S. EPA's environmental futures initiative > (http://www.epa.gov/osp/efuture.htm) and Project Horizon. > > While being of the same generation as you, I cannot stand by and be > silent > as the majesty of Nature is decimated by human greed. For me, it's a > matter > of respect, responsibility and my own self-esteem. This is my personal > choice and my personal opinion. > > Cordially yours, > > Geoff Patton > > Tom Schweich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I dunno ... the first I remember is being taught to hide under my desk > at school (1952), bend way over and kiss my ass good-bye because the > commies were going to blow us to smithereens. Then I think it was all > the smog in Los Angeles that was going to get us. Then all the nuclear > power plants were going to simultaneously melt down. Then we were going > to completely run out of oil by year 2000. Then all the pollution was > going to kill us. Not to mention forest fires, plane crashes, > earthquakes, and floods. I've given up dying over and over again, and > plan to live a little in my few remaining years. Until then, I'll try > to be efficient in my use of petroleum products and not contribute to > over-population, excessive pollution, or set off any earthquakes. > > -- > Tom Schweich http://www.schweich.com > > > stan moore wrote: >> Folks -- >> >> Professor William Catton is Professor Emeritus in Sociology and Human >> Ecology at Washington State University. aIn 1982 (isn't it hard to >> believe > >> that was 1/4 century ago!) Professor Catton wrote "Overshoot: The >> Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change", which some people have said is >> among the most important books ever written ... etc. >> >> >> > > > > --------------------------------- > Don't get soaked. Take a quick peek at the forecast > with theYahoo! Search weather shortcut. > >
