Greg,
Your underhanded attack on me and others is baseless. Here is my
entire original response to you (which, notably, you did not include):
"Greg, in my opinion your pedantic diatribe was astoundingly
unhelpful and overly critical of ESA's effort to develop a statement
on economic growth.
I am unsure of which prolix policy statement you refer to, but it was
not an official ESA statement. With membership of thousands of
people worldwide, ESA wants to ensure that as a scientific society
they produce "documents that are carefully reviewed and appropriately
reflect the underlying science and the Ecological Society of
America" (N. Lymn, below)
You might submit your recommendation to the Public Affairs Office of
ESA for consideration. Since you consider yourself an ecologist
("amateur" status notwithstanding), you might also consider joining
ESA and work together in the society's efforts, rather than kibitzing
from the sidelines."
With a re-reading, you will note:
1) Nowhere do I say I am uncomfortable with your conviction. On the
contrary, I suggested you submit it to ESA where your opinion might
be considered by those writing the ESA statement, instead of flaming
this forum.
2) Since I was not challenging your thesis, I didn't need to present
arguments against it. Agreed?
3) I said nothing of overconsumption (I note that your original post
did not either). Had I spoken to overconsumption, I would have said
that it is a huge problem. I would refer you to the replies of
Ashwani and Jane. As it turns out, my thoughts align closely with
theirs.
4) I say nothing of population growth. How you inferred my position
on population growth from my post is a mystery. By the way, your
apparent guess is a misrepresentation of my view on the topic, making
you 3 for 3 for unfounded criticism. Jane and Ashwani have already
corrected you too. Furthermore, I think this view is representative
of the majority of ESA members; viz., that population growth is a
concern.
5) I don't think I need to defend my opinion that I found your
diatribe unhelpful. If pressed, I'd say your unprovoked, inflammatory
tone had a lot to do with it.
5) I'll also not co-opt the prefix Doctor. Another errancy on your
part, I'm afraid.
Please confine further unfounded personal attacks to my personal
email address (whence they will be duly deleted), rather than the
forum. I haven't time to publicly defend myself from your rhetoric.
On Jan 21, 2008, at 6:19 AM, Greg Davies wrote:
> Neal:
> Yes, touche, it was a "pedantic diatribe", but those with the =
> conviction of the severity of the problems will continue to pen =
> "pedantic diatribes" to your (and others) discomfort.
>
> Notably, however, you present NO empirical or theoretical ecological =
> argument to challenge my basic thesis (I would honestly welcome this =
> from professional ecologists).
>
> Notably X2, you give NO reasons why my "pedantic diatribe" was, in =
> itself, "astoundingly unhelpful". If a diatribe is not factually or =
> theoretically incorrect, it may serve as a tiny, volatile but useful =
> stimulus, at least to those who are in broad agreement with my
> views, =
> and are more ecologically-knowledgeable and tactful than myself.
>
> As a non-professional ecologist, I see, for example, daily global =
> consumption rates of oil now at 1000 barrels per second (!), the US =
> population growth rate at 1% (i.e. a doubling time of a mere 70 yrs, =
> i.e. one average human lifespan), and unquestioned devotion to
> unending =
> economic growth from world leaders. Perhaps I am na=EFve and
> ignorant, =
> but data such as these are stark & unambiguous, as are the
> principals we =
> derive from basic population dynamics.
>
> Against this FACTUAL background, mealy-mouthed policy statements and =
> timidity from the largest professional body of ecologists in the
> world =
> does seem unfortunate, IMNSHO.
>
> But Dr Bryan, you can take immense solace from the fact that
> ecologists =
> such as yourself, Dr Shevstov, and Dr Vasishth, who view population =
> growth as a non-problem, appear to be in the ESA majority.
>
> You guys can now return to more pressing matters such as writing
> grant =
> proposals and publishing papers in careerist journals to inflate
> your =
> citation factor.
>
> This has been another long, ugly, pedantic diatribe, so I will
> finish =
> with a quote from a far more tactful and distinguished personality
> in =
> the form of ecologist Robert May, who was recently President of the =
> Royal Society; of course, the United Kingdom's foremost scientific =
> society.
>
> He stated (in 1993):
> "... [the growth of human populations] is the engine that drives =
> everything. Patterns of accelerating resource use, and their
> variation =
> among regions, are important but secondary: problems of wasteful =
> consumption can be solved if population growth is halted, but such =
> solutions are essentially irrelevant if populations continue to =
> proliferate. Every day the planet sees a net increase (births less =
> deaths) of about one quarter of a million people. Such numbers defy =
> intuitive appreciation. Yet many religious leaders seem to welcome
> these =
> trends, seemingly motivated by calculations about their market
> share. =
> And governments, most notably that of the U.S., keep the issue off
> the =
> international agenda; witness the Earth Summit meeting in Rio de =
> Janeiro. Until this changes, I see little hope."
>
> May, R.M. The End of Biological History? Scientific American, March =
> 1993, pp. 146-149.
On Jan 18, 2008, at 5:16 AM, Greg Davies wrote:
> Any statement on economic growth should EXPLICITLY refer to human
> population and population growth in the SAME statement.
>
> FAILURE to mention the problem of human population growth as THE
> driver
> of economic growth (as witnessed in the prolix, potential E.S.A.
> policy
> statement circulated on this list the other day) will render the
> statement otiose and near-useless.
>
> Your message itself reads somewhat like insipid bureaucratic waffle.
> Surely, from fundamental ecological canons, the premise of
> exponential,
> infinite (economic) growth against a base of finite resources is
> simply
> impossible? What more scientifically and ecologically can there be
> left
> to cogitate over in your multifarious committees?
>
> Can an outsider (i.e. non-ESA member) and amateur ecologist (i.e.
> non-professional) such as myself possibly divine in your email that
> the
> real reasons for E.S.A. foot-dragging on this important issue are
> actually more of a political and sociological flavour, and the wish to
> avoid "controversy"?
>
On Jan 17, 2008, at 4:02 PM, Nadine Lymn wrote:
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re ESA and Economic Growth Statement
>
> Dear Ecologers,
>
> There have been several postings over the last months urging the
> Ecological Society of America to consider issuing a position statement
> on economic growth. In addition, a group of ecologists submitted a
> request to the Governing Board in August, followed by additional
> letters
> of interest supporting such a statement.
>
> The ESA Governing Board is taking this interest seriously and has
> asked
> the Society's Public Affairs Committee to oversee the development of a
> position statement for its consideration and review.
>
> This process is underway and there will be an opportunity for
> interested
> members to offer feedback to the proposed statement. In addition, the
> Public Affairs Office has been collecting the many letters that have
> already come in offering views on this topic.
>
> As with all the Society's position statements, ESA takes very
> seriously
> the task of producing documents that are carefully reviewed and
> appropriately reflect the underlying science and the Ecological
> Society
> of America. We will notify this list when a draft is available for
> comment and appreciate the interest in this topic.
>
> Nadine Lymn
> ESA Director of Public Affairs
