I didn't coin this term.( Eva: 'Horn of Plenty' is another similiar term )
Here is a snippet from a paper "THE CORNUCOPIAN FALLACIES"
Lindsey Grant (1992)
An intense if intermittent debate is under way between environmentalists
and
"cornucopians." The environmentalists warn of threats to the ecosystem and
to
renewable resources, such as cropland and forests, caused by population
growth and
exploitative economic activities. The cornucopians say that population
growth is good,
not bad (Julian Simon), or that it will solve itself (Herman Kahn),
[This is the part that I was referring to specifically in my use of the
term, SK]:
**
that shortages are
mythical or can be made good by technology and substitution, and generally
that we can
expect a glorious future. **
The debate has strong political overtones. If things are going well, we
don't need to do
anything about them—a useful argument for laissez faire. If something is
going wrong,
the environmentalists usually want the government to do something about it.
The debate
thus gets mixed up in the current reaction against "petty government
interference" and a
generalized yearning to return to earlier, more permissive economic and
political
practices.
Although there are substantial differences between their views (as we shall
see later in
this chapter), both men are identified with a simple message of reassurance
to a
society that does not seem to want to be told about problems. The message
is best
exemplified in the title of the article in Science magazine that brought
Simon to
prominence: "Resources, Population, Environment: An Oversupply of False Bad
News."
2
For the employer seeking assurance of cheap labor or the businessman hoping
for the
larger market, it is comforting to be told that more immigration and
population growth
are good things. The idealist, eager to help hungry fellow humans and
fearful that pleas
for lower fertility are a cover for racism, is just as likely to be
beguiled by the message,
unless he or she has come to realize that laudable purposes sometimes
conflict with
each other.
One could hardly object to having a couple of cornucopians urging people to
be of good
cheer and stout heart, were it not for the danger that may convince some
citizens and
policy makers not to worry about some pressing problems that urgently need
attention.
The cornucopians' argumentation, however, is seriously flawed as a tool for
identifying
the real and important present trends.
There is an asymmetry in the nature of the arguments of the
environmentalists and the
cornucopians. The environmentalist—the proponent of corrective action—is
(or should
be) simply warning of consequences if trends or problems are ignored; he or
she does
not need to predict. The cornucopian, on the other hand, must predict to
make his or her
case. He must argue that problems will be solved and good things will
happen if we let
nature take its course. Since nobody has yet been able to predict the
future,
cornucopians are asking their listeners to take a lot on faith. They say,
in effect, "Believe as I do, and you will feel better." Simon says
explicitly that his conversion to his present viewpoint improved his state
of mind.
The cornucopians have made assumptions and chosen methodologies that simply
ignore or dismiss the most critical issues that have led the
environmentalists to their
concerns:
* The cornucopians pay little attention to causation and they project past
economic
trends mechanically.
* They casually dismiss the evidence that doesn't "fit."
* They employ a static analysis that makes no provision for feedback from
one sector to
another. * They understate the implications of geometric growth. * They
base their
predictions on an extraordinary faith in uninterrupted technological
progress.
We will look into some of these cornucopian fallacies, the reasoning
processes and
omissions that characterize Simon's and Kahn's analyses.
(snip)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
more at: http://208.240.253.224/page45.htm
